< October 20 | October 22 > |
---|
The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable web site, linkspam Delete abakharev 08:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Robert T | @ | C 23:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of a series of submissions in Farsi, uploaded on 8 October and listed on WP:PNT the same day.. Physchim62 05:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About as non-notable as it gets: "the coolest house in the Fargo Moorhead area". -- Mwanner | Talk 21:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as copyvio by RHaworth. --GraemeL (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD Nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No vote. You can call me Al 19:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Band with no assertion of notability. Delete. -- SCZenz 08:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan, Non-notable dicdef W.marsh 19:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable. I can find no confirmation that the claims in the article are true... the only search results do not verify the claim, or point back to WP [1]. The only search for "Abbaspour prostitute" points back to WP. Seems unverifiable and thus doesn't warrant an article. W.marsh 19:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising or vanity? What would Jesus do? Eddie.willers 03:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus; therefore, keep.. – Alphax τεχ 06:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability. He was someone’s son and he had a daughter. That’s the extent of the article: nothing more than genealogy. ♠DanMS 00:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bggoldie 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be the "newspaper of Occupied Confederate Territory" inspired by Drudge. Looks more like a blog to me. Not sure if notable as such, but has Alexa ranking of 3,693,936.. JJay 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. DES (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke. The growth patterns of the tomatoes in my garden indicate that this article should be deleted. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 18:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus, votes are about evenly split between redirect and delete/keep. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fraternity organization that just started at one college? Seems non-notable. --Mysidia (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 06:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising for a comic. Article written by comic's author - which makes this vanity as well. Eddie.willers 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was replace with the article at Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory. – Alphax τεχ 07:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as joke...and a poor one at that. Eddie.willers 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a made-up word. --Mysidia (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as slang dicdef or possible neologism. Eddie.willers 03:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN band. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is a duplicate of Ant Bully (2006 film). Eddie.willers 03:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originial research big time. Molotov (talk)
16:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN on her own Gurubrahma 12:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't explain its subject, containing no verifiable information; at best it is an obscure curiosity which wouldn't seem to merit an article... --Mysidia (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and too recent to establish notability. Yes, it really exists but garners very few google hits. Eddie.willers 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:MUSIC. This band has no releases. Joyous (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as an article with little context. Jkelly 06:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No real explanation of anything here. Could perhaps be a CSD because of that, but I decided to bring it here instead. As far as i can tell, anything that says "X is [unexplained relink], [unexplained redlink], [unexplained redlink], [unexplained redlink], [unexplained redlink], [unexplained redlink], and [unexplained redlink]." is not an article. -R. fiend 18:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like a class essay and is not encylopaedic. Is the article about animals? Is it about a book about those animals? Perhaps it's about the man who wrote the book about those animals. Will we ever know, especially as there are no quoted sources. Eddie.willers 03:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 06:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A patented material used here to advertize a brand of soldering iron. -R. fiend 17:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Not much to merge. Rx StrangeLove 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true, when someone is talking about authentication and authorization they're not talking about Java -- this material doesn't belong in an article by this title. --Mysidia (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsensical jibberjabber that lacks encylopaedic merit. Eddie.willers 03:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion because it is just incorrect and probably does the reader more harm than good.., containing such assertions as: Mathematics is a process which involves a string of integers or Every application of mathematics relies on the four basic operators of Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division. Mathematics, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division have their own articles, anyways. --Mysidia (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Note: I did not delete this page. Friday did, without archiving the AfD. Acetic'Acid 04:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax, not funny enough for BJAODN. Chick Bowen 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy redirected to Zoophilia. BD2412 talk 17:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Non encyclopedic and mispelled article that has useless info. An article with such a title - with correct spelling - exists. Molotov (talk)
16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a definition of a neologism that does not have a widespread common usage, and is not of encyclopedic character. Thesquire 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious vanity by a guy who doesn't know if he passed his bar exam yet. Note how is banner claim is founder of the Progressive Texan, another article up for deletion unsigned nomination by User:151.204.155.222
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All of this information is already at Electroencephalography Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]
The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just another stub about a box on wheels. Why write these articles? Silensor 16:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no mentions of notable bands, making me think this is a label that doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC The Land 09:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merged. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, transient. Merge with KINY. -- Just zis Guy, you know?
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as G4 by OwenX. --GraemeL (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vanity Flapdragon 18:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable because, as the author says, they don't want to give away any secrets. Contentless. —Cleared as filed. 22:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable accoriddng to the guidelines at WP:MUSIC The Land 16:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not real; Google finds zero relevant non-wikipedia hits Michael Z. 19:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirecting to Jane Wyman which has this information. Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A premature kid who lived for a day Gurubrahma 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Previously marked for speedy deletion, but I moved it here to AFD just in case someone can find sources to verify that this artist "has influenced artists on both coasts". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fionn mac Cumhail's son was Oisín - this entry is incorrect and/or unverifiable. Ziggurat 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merge (3m, 2d). Actually, this is technically a "no consensus", however, given that nobody actually voted to keep, and 60% voted merge, I think that merging is the appropriate decision.--Scimitar parley 16:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious vanity article about a high school marching band. Might be notable if they had actually won something, but "state finalist" just isn't good enough for inclusion in an encylopedia.
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band, does not meet WP:Music, non verifiable -- possibly a single relavent google hit [12]. And the page was vandalised for 5 months and no one noticed. chowells 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 06:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but advertising for a non-notable business. Already removed linkspam from the article. —Cleared as filed. 22:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like vanity, though it's not. Here we have a person who "is an advocate of open-source software" (I advocate a bunch of things myself), is on the board of some organization, and works at Intel. Does this mean everyone get's in an encyclopedia? I don't see how this is encyclopedic. -R. fiend 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this article to Wikibooks, then delete from Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect to Neurotically Yours. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While the series she voices seems to pass notability muster, I don't think she does by association, or by any other means. This is her only voice work, and there's not even any verifiable info about her on this page. Vanity at worst, non notable at best. Delete Redirect, nothing really to merge.--InShaneee 04:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (see below). -R. fiend 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Universities are inherently notable, departments and institutes only when they have a particularly illustrious history or an outstanding reputation. The Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Manchester isn't particularly great. Pilatus 00:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable If verifiable, add as a footnote to the main article on Dipendra of Nepal (or the Crown Prince if such exists) - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Joyous (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as attack by RHaworth. --GraemeL (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No such mammal. I can only assume from the article text that this is an attack on someone named Ducharme? —Cleared as filed. 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for an nn company. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete; deleted by Friday. --BorgHunter (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN bio. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. This is a close call, and User:Iamnotanorange, who wrote the first unsigned keep vote, is a real user and not a sock puppet. But User:Muke makes convincing arguments for deletion. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not suitable for Wikipedia (dictionary entry, and a neologism at that). Plastered on Wiktionary and another public-edit site as well in an attempt to promote it. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 18:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.livejournal.com/users/_midsummer/58062.html
The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A news story that doesn't seem particularily notable. - Laur 15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, nonsense. Sorry for him not having made the burgers right, but this is of little interest for almost everyone in the world.
The result of the debate was KEEP and RENAME to Georgia State Route 120 Loop. — JIP | Talk 10:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteworthy. Most of the links in the article point to non-entries which are also nn. I don't even think it's worth a dicdef. Ifnord 13:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So try this: GGSearch is a toolbar that works independent of any browser and searches Google.
While it was created in 2002 by P.J.Kraaima it has Google's permission to search like it does since February 14, 2003 as one of the of the software tools that doesnt has to folow the Google API.
Due to its users it's available in many languages.
Template:compu-soft-stub Template:website-stub
So, less spam, but clear and to the point I think.
The Ggsearch article is really spam. It don't have much potential. glocks out 19:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Hall Monitor as A7, nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Lets not just delete things that we disagree with from other user's pages. This is not an article.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is on the guys user page, but a lot of the content could be construed as attacking, such as the claim that blacks are prone to venereal disease. This is just not appropriate for an encyclopedia as I see it. —Gaff ταλκ
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band keepsleeping say what 20:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling, no context, unedited for a long period of time. Impaciente 22:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a textbook case of original research - EurekaLott 03:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteworthy +/- vanity. Ifnord 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete - copyvio. Thryduulf 17:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copy-and-paste from http://stilyagi.org/cons/1999/howard.html, but there's no copyright notice on the site, so I didn't tag it as a speedy candidate. As written, it's not fit for inclusion, but if he's written a guide to science fiction awards, he might be notable enough. Abstain. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article, but can't be speedied under Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles because it's not about a person. AJR | Talk 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. All "Do Not Delete" votes are obviously by forum insiders. — JIP | Talk 10:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. The site does not have enough traffic to generate an Alexa rating.[14] --Allen3 talk 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and legal action can be taken. -djcodr
http://boards.icb2.com/ is the web address of the ICB2 (Short for Insider Community Board part deux), commonly referred to as "The Deuce". It is a forum where refugees from IGN's original Insider Community Board regularly post. Topics range from politics to s&m, which makes for an ideal place of varied discussion, criticism and opinions. There is usually a harsh "breaking in" of new users, which ultimately leads to them leaving angered if they haven't been blessed with a hard outer shell, or staying for the ride if they can take the initial ribbing. Many new users at first cannot comprehend what is the initial attraction of The Deuce, yet given a few weeks they too, become regulars. For the moment there are twelve people total who are in charge of keeping the peace, yet The Deuce is far from authoritarian, with Moderators, Managers and Administrators rarely taking their power into account.
The user count of The Deuce has been estimated to be in the thousands, yet the regular poster count whittles this down to the couple hundreds. Most users who secede from the original ICB rarely opt to go back, for said forum leaves one's freedom greatly severed, this being embodied in censorship, overly strict moderators, etc. ; This explains why the original ICB is slowly but surely dying, for where there once was a golden age of discussion, there it now lies a rotted corpse of its former self, averaging barely thirty or so posts a day.
There is said to be a certain rivalry between the ICB and The Deuce, with the ICB claiming Deucers to be vulgar and low in IQ count. The Deucers claim ICBers are prude ninny conformists, in their own right. Who knows if someday the two will join forces once again?
P.S. Don't buy anything from SaffronsGhost.
The result of the debate was redirect to Demographics of France. – Alphax τεχ 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a much, much better article at "Demographics of France", the author has not sourced the statistics, and also the writer's IP seems to be one that has been causing trouble as "Gary Mayne" MacRusgail 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as a speedy, but IMO does not qualify. Possibly spam, but possibly the start of an encyclopedic discussion of blogging as a communication technique in italy. Needs clanup and more encyclopedic tone, if kept. Abstain. DES (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article fork written by anon after The Jackson 5 was cleaned up to move sales information (which I am not even sure should be included; the source for the album sales is not verifiable) to Jackson 5 discography. Delete, no merge. FuriousFreddy 17:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. --Carnildo 22:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a personal bio without notability established. Molotov (talk)
16:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page (includes information that only that person is likely to know) about some completely random county councillor. Dunc|☺ 15:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created as part of a thorough cycle of pages providing information to citizens regarding elected officials in the state of New Jersey as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey. As part of expanding articles about New Jersey's 21 Counties, information regarding Freeholders has been added, including pages for individual members of the Board of Chosen Freeholders and the County Executive. Pages have been created for Bergen County, New Jersey Freeholders and have been created for five of seven of those in Passaic County, New Jersey. Pages for each municipality in each County will have information added regarding their local officials, including Freeholders (see Ringwood, New Jersey for an example). Pages have also been created for every one of the 40 members of the New Jersey Senate and are well underway for the 80 members of the New Jersey General Assembly. Freeholders are elected officials who serve in districts far larger than the 120 members of the New Jersey Legislature. This is NOT being done on a "completely random" basis and while it may be irrelevant to many, is of importance to every resident of New Jersey. Alansohn 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable Flapdragon 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non notable band does not meet WP:Music, unverifiable (just 4 google hits [15] most of which are nonsense). chowells 04:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No notability established in my opinion. Molotov (talk)
16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, high school teachers are not inherently notable. Thue | talk 20:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a high school teacher incorrectly tagged as speedy. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Adema. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteworthy, +/- vanity. POV and dull to boot. Yes, yes, Trollerella - the last part is not a criteria for delete. I know. Just had to put it in there. Ifnord 02:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Celestianpower háblame 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is unnecessary, and is simply wrong. Stemonitis 08:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A quick update: I have now written Geography of the Alps, which includes a section on the Main chain of the Alps, and one on the Limits of the Alps. The latter at least, is now entirely superseded. --Stemonitis 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing against lists, but what's the point of this? Who would ever look this up? This is one of the most idiosyncratic non-topics I've ever seen. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 04:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Totally uninteresting and pointless list. Reyk 00:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone asks, yes, this is this articles 4th visit to VFD/AFD, which I assume is a record. the second trip can be found here, the third trip here, and apparently the first occurred before Wikipedia even had archiving for delete debates!. So, needless to say, this article has been around the block a few timesdue in large part to a few reasons. Despite this record, this article also probably is close to the record for the most reverts and the most NPOV notices (excluding George W. Bush, who's in a league of his own), corrected below, thanks Trollderella Karmafist 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, this article needs to be renamed, and drastically cleaned up, perhaps to the point of where it would need to become a Collaboration of the Week for it to be fixed. Otherwise, it'll probably be back here again and again, like it has in the past. I say let's Delete this, like many other unwiedly lists have been recently on AFD. Karmafist 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't delete comments or links to them. My goal with that statement was to move lengthy commentaries such as the ones above to a separate area where people who wish to get "the jist" of the conversation can see it without wading through an overflow of information. I was in the middle of writing the response, I was doing several other things, only to find that the link was gone. Karmafist 04:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with eccentricity(behavior)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalPisces (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 October 2005
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 16:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unwikified advertisement. No notability according to WP:CORP established. --S.K. 13:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, signed article Maltesedog 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 06:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned stub, dicdef, very low Google count (316 - and some of those are mirrors), not a word I've heard used outside the context of the film. No vote. mholland 15:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mixture of vanity and original research. The concept of "space poetry" appears to be unverifiable and its sole author non-notable. --MarkSweep✍ 05:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 06:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteworthy +/- vanity. Ifnord 02:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Alphax τεχ 07:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article for a Community School teacher. (Kind of cute though.) freshgavin TALK 11:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be destroying the ideals that wikipedia is based on to delete this but I do think there should be some qualifications needed to edit intelectual articles.
I respect you all and I can understand the frustration of looking up "hartman" and finding this, but now that it's based purely on fact (for GWer's I still saved the "chronicles") I hope you'll take it under consideration to keep it living. - J.M.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly tagged as speedy, though probably borderline. A sweet memoriam, but no assertion of significance. Listing here. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE'. — JIP | Talk 11:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
tagged for speedy delete, but IMO does not qualify. There are over 60 google hits on this phrase, which does seem to be the alias of a hacker of some sort. However, I doubt whether this is notable enough to have an article -- if this is kept, it should be cleaned up. Weak delete -- unless notability is established, this should go. DES (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all. --Celestianpower háblame 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None of these pages seem to do anything but show samples from microscope and x-ray scans. There is no encyclopedic value at all to any of these pages, so delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non notable band, does not meet WP:Music, unverifiable (just a single google hit as far as I can see [17]). chowells 10:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge with New Trier High School. --Celestianpower háblame 09:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a vanity page. Plus, non-notable. Plus, there is no content, only examples of texts they published. Definitly not encyclopedia material. Ritchy 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting on today's page. Thryduulf 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ogza! --Asparagus 04:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was cute, but delete. Titoxd(?!?) 06:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly taggda s speedy. Listing here. Sweet and well-meaning, but it is an essay. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
contained in Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Mini 09:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
first nom I am renominting this sock infected vfd 5keep/10delete again. still a nn resterant just to many out there --JAranda | watz sup 01:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a point here, but the article establishes no context and comes off as pure nonsense. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 10:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopaedic. Fictional subject, may be valid as a footnote in an article about E.E. Doc Smith or the Lensman series. {nom from User:Just zis Guy, you know? 13:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A blog that just started a couple weeks ago. No assertion of significance. Friday (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 19:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not... [l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons." (emphasis mine) Does Wikipedia need another list?Edwardian 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (Comment updated 20:10, 26 October 2005)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep, apparently neither nominator nor anyone else wanted it deleted. Friday (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to create a notable article here, and wanted it to be a featured candidate, but apparently it just isn't good enough. Molotov (talk)
04:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been deleted previously, and since its recreation has contained nothing but POV rants Bobstay 12:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No relevant Google hits. Information on chinchilla seems to contradict this article. I smell a hoax. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising blurb for hotel. Seems like a nice joint, but nothing makes it notable. JJay 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus. Thryduulf 17:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV (and if it wasn't it would merely be duplicating other pages) Just zis Guy, you know? 10:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original POV stuff deleted pending AfD decision. This page could serve as a placeholder to link to a list of various safety standards, but since the page Safety already fills the primary requirement and individual standards are more appropriately linked to their subject pages (such as road safety) even this would appear to be moot. The page itself seems in the main to be one user's reaction against the neutrality of several bike and bike safety pages.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non notable band does not meet WP:Music, unverifiable (barely any (if any) relavent google hits [18]). chowells 04:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by another admin, all revisions of article was nonsense. Thue | talk 19:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Needs verification. Molotov (talk)
15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Excuse me, but exactly what needs to be verified? The only content in the article is patent nonsense. The taste of some random guy for cheese is not something to be verified in wikipedia. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. --Carnildo 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Portmanteau neologism, likely hoax, very few Google hits --Fire Star 15:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN organization recently founded by an Irish teenager. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 21:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, request by the only person who had made non-triviel edits to the article. Thue | talk 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone (Thorsten) created it by accident; Thorsten requests (on the talk page) that the page be deleted. It doesn't even have "deprecated" properly spelled in the title, and there's a reasonable simply typed lambda calculus page already.
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nn book, not released yet; article written by user with the same name as the article; 28 google hits. 146.57.34.139 14:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef/neologism. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. The magazines seem to be real, but nevertheless the consensus is to delete the articles on them. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Previously marked for speedy deletion as "vanity", but I moved it here to AFD to get more opinions on whether or not these two online magazines are notable enough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-Now that I think I've figured how to log in, please do at least take a moment to review the website. Thx. Whitfrazier 18:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'* Reply to strong delete The only person involved in the creating of the magazine from above is me. I sent out an email to old writers, and readers who had written in with comments asking for support. How else would people know this discussion was going on? Like I said, SR was and is a small operation. I repeat that there are not many venues for talented, marginalized writers, as many little literary zines as there are, because the focus is ultimately profit. Since I pay for absolutely everything out of my own pocket to run this operation, there is no profit here for me. There is a fan base. Give people time to write in. Did you visit the site? Whitfrazier 23:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Consensus is clear, and both the nom and the single delete voter have problems with the content, not the topic (and have expressed to me that they have no objections to a speedy keep). It's not fair to have this on AFD when it's currently protected, either. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly OR, unverifiable, unencyclopedic how-to-kill yourself Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not to mention, this article has no content and is basically just an advertisement. —Cleared as filed. 22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is purely promotional and the website doesn't need its own article. K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not on AMG, fails WP:Music as far as I can tell, article is a blatant advertisement as written --W.marsh 15:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Denelson83 07:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable message board.--Shanel 04:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement. Unlikley to ever be the subject of an encyclopediac articel. nn consumer producet. Delete. DES (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. How may desperate wiki-spamming bands are out there?...Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band keepsleeping say what 17:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
minor band. no actual releases. no media profile in New Zealand. noizyboy 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Usually, I wouldn't delete an article after an anonymous nomination and no other opinions, but this is such nonsense that I've little qualms about it. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
patent nonsense 202.7.166.168 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Useless page that people probably won't read. Unwikified stub. -rayluT 01:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE (discounting IPs). Robert T | @ | C 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion was from the October 14th AfD. I've moved it here since there was a single registered vote, and although that is 100% for delete, 1 vote seems inadequate. Now that I'm handling the admin side of things I will Abstain. Wikibofh 23:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another Internet forum. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep it alive, it's harmless fun - embrace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.195.82 (talk • contribs) 20:22, October 21, 2005
its looks like an accurate description of a well known website, i think it has a place here. - matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.195.82 (talk • contribs) 02:06, October 22, 2005
"Dont delete" It appears to be a short description of a website. Let it live. - Chakra.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopaedic, merge with Lighting Just zis Guy, you know? 11:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus - suggestion to merge. Thryduulf 17:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Obviously, this shall be re-created on 2014, perhaps earlier.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a Crystal Ball Delete --JAranda | watz sup 22:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is either deliberate spam, or the result of a very bored person sitting around looking at stuff. Either way it's non-notable. Reyk 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
fake country, no google matches, no known context - Stoph 03:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence article: "(f) Palestinian artist. Born on 3 Aug 1973, France." Google turns up nothing. No evidence of verifiability or notability, anyone else know anything about the topic? —Morven 11:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-¨Do not Delete¨notable palestinine artist. Home page and Critic through Google (GR)
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Previously marked for speedy deletion, but I moved it here on AFD just in case anybody thinks that "the editor of the now defunct literary journal Strawberry Press Magazine which has become Strawberry Ragtime" is notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity ad article CambridgeBayWeather 16:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC) See vote change below.[reply]
I was at the meeting of the WPCUG in Windsor Ontario ,on Oct 20/05 when this article was created. It was used as a demo to illustrate how to post an artile on Wikipedia and it was intended that members would log on and edit or expand the info in this article as per your policies. The demo lasted over an hour and a half. Most people there including myself, had never heard of this web site and were quite interested. Your protocalls and/or language requirements were new to us so much effort went to showing how various elements could be created. It was intended an is a learning tool. I assure you this is neither a vanity ad article nor a hoax. Art Belanger belanger@mnsi.net
The reason for this artile is to give history of our users group. The article the way it stands is a stepping stone for our membership to give it life. The point of the Wikipedia is knowledge, knowledge of things present and past, which is what we entended out entry to be. It was not a 'vanity' post as was suggested. I ask what we would have to do to keep this page on your site. We feel that the history of our club is something that can benefit the internet community. Michael Celotto mcelotto@cogeco.ca
Actually I do have an account with Wikipedia (mcelotto) I'm the person who is in charge of the website, and I gave the demo on who to use the wikipedia. The reason that we have the entries (ie. "Stuff Entered here") and inaccuracies (ie. "club was formed before I joined long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"), is because I was showing the users where to enter their information. I assure you that the information will be updated from what I have put. Actually if you look at the entry now, there is club history. I appoligize for the "(ie. "Stuff Entered here") and inaccuracies (ie. "club was formed before I joined long time ago in a galaxy far, far away")", but it was a way to show our membership how to enter information, because well the club did start before I joined. It has been corrected now, again I appoligize. Also the entry in the missage from Michael Celotto (me) I didn't sign into my Wikipedia account, and when I was giving the demo on the entering of information, I didn't even think to log in at the time. How do I edit the article in my userspace? I will also say that I did not know that we could not put our website's address in the header, I will change that. --mcelotto
I am the president of the WPCUG and let me set the record straight. The posting of the page on your site is meant to document the history of our users group in Windsor that has been serving the area for more than 20 years now. The first posting was used as a learning tool to introduce members to wikipedia and show them how the site works, the content was a starting template. The night of the page was posted had the members were so involved browsing and viewing wikipedia and its contents that our time at the meeting ran out and the page could not be updated from it very simple template. The object was to have the members go home and at update the content. The posting of the deletion notice has stopped that process. I am asking that you get the club a chance to update the page and its content so it can be a valuable link to the clubs history. Let me also apologize for the way the fist page was left on your site. I assure you this is neither a vanity ad article nor a hoax. President of the WPCUG Larry Ruston pres@wpcug.com
First I would like to thank everyone for the help that they have given us with our page. In regards to the Westchester PC Users Group, we at the Windsor PC Users Group would be more than happy to change the title of the Wiki as to not cause any arguments. Our page as it stands now does give history to the group. I do appoligize for the way that we left the page originally, I should have looked at the rules of the Wikipedia more closely, it was just poor preperation on my part...--Mcelotto 03:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN software project by "2 code kids from surrey" --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was userfied. There's no way this will stay as an article, but it was created by a logged in user. I moved it to User:Xash and explained on User talk:Xash. Friday (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he's a lovely person. But a record of involvement on Sonic the Hedegehog messageboards does not warrant an encyclopedia article, particularly not a self-contributed one. The Land 14:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
minor band. one self-released EP. no media profile. noizyboy 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]