The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this Australasian Furry community here. Have a look at the plethora of different Furry art/comic/fiction sites they host. One of these, is the webcomic Fuzzy Things, seen here. The entire furry.org.au domain returns an Alexa ranking of 300,000, maybe it's a notable furry community that's a different discussion, but is a one site out of the scores that are hosted there particularly notable? I don't think so, I don't think it is any more notable than any of the other sites hosted on that Furry community, and they aren't. - Hahnchen 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A webcomic, which can be found here at Unseen Studios LLC. It's Alexa rank comes back at over 1.5 million and neither their Livejournal nor forums are particularly active. The article claims that a book has been published, and gives an ISBN number which I can't seem to trace. However, there is a link to their book on the website, which you can only buy direct, and looks self published. This doesn't seem to be notable. - Hahnchen 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable doctor. Pugs Malone 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. The nomination has zero basis in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and even a modicum of research reveals, as pointed out below (and indeed as pointed out in the article), that there is no shortage of sources upon this subject. I also caution 207.62.186.233 (talk · contribs) to refrain from personal attacks against other editors, such as exemplified below, and also to read our policies on Wikipedia not being a soapbox and the Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not here to promote the personal viewpoints of its editors. It's an encyclopaedia. If you want to argue a case for your personal views of the merits of this subject, please do so in an appropriate venue, such as an article published in a relevant scholarly journal, not here. Uncle G 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep as a bad nomination (no reason given) from a bad user (blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account). Turnstep 13:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Delete! Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 0:44, April 21, 2006 (UTC)
Keep? How is this person notable? Delete! Delete! Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 1:21, 21 April 2006
The result of the debate was deletethissocalledlongestwordvanityspamcruftarticleoffthefaceofwikipedia. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's a long advertising slogan doesn't mean it deserves an article. It will be a perma-stub and it can be mentioned in the Longest word in English article instead. Nobody will find this article anyway.--Zxcvbnm 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. -lethe talk + 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy, citing "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day," but I do not believe that is grounds for a speedy. I do, however, believe this should go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Delete! Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 1:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 01:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, no useful purpose. Keppa 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. SushiGeek 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. The article makes no claim to notability; the website itself claims about 400 members. AOL homepage, so no Alexa data. A few web directories but no non-trivial coverage available on Google. [1] [2] [3] Melchoir 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax. No google hits Cvene64 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems long advertising promotion for a book. No evidence provided that the book is especially notable or cited by a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Created by same editor who set up an apparantly spam article also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.PregnancyJourneysAfterLoss.com David Ruben Talk 01:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does a book get to be notable by Wiki definition? Childless mothers and childless fathers have different experiences. As a mother, I can only write from a woman's perspective. Childless mother, the phrase comes up sporadically on Internet-searches, and is very recently being used. Elovesme99
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a game manual/tactics manual. Even if it were, there is no content on this page. Purpose better served by linking to something like GameFAQs' page on EaW FAQs. Tokakeke 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I made the tactics page. My reason was because I normally use Wiki for a whole lot of stuff, and that it would be good to really have some stuff all in one bunch, not to go to some other place to get this tactics and other. Anyway a lot of those gaming sites need a subscription. Who's gonna pay $10 or more just to see a little guide or some info on the units? Anyway, I'm still rather new to Wiki, and I value your opinion. Let's discuss some more. RelentlessRouge 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thnx. I'll think about it. Let's keep in touch. I've been surfing around the Net 4 EaW tactics, and couldn't find an iota... hmm. Interesting. Let's keep in touch. Tell me other reasons why. Thnx a lot. RelentlessRouge 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be deleted as per WP:NN. It's mostly just an unpleasantly long list of each different variety of doll... Plus, “...who discontinued making them several years ago” and “as new models haven't been seen for almost three years now”. Perhaps a merge with Tomy, the US company which produced them? The UK company Golden Bear Toys doesn't seem to have an article. --Valermos 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no assertion of notability in this article. They're just some group that tries to make sports popular. This is written like an ad and a google search gets 193 hits. [4] A Clown in the Dark 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its parent article is Star Wars: Empire at War Tactics, also up for AfD here. As with this that article, this should go as WP:NOT a how to guide. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is little more than a dictionary definition and has no promise of expansion.--Wikiwriter706 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingstuffadder 14:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep the cleaned-up version. Good work, everyone. Turnstep 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is self promotion and spam and has no business in an encyclopedia.--Joe Jklin 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited it, it seems pretty nuetral to me, I would welcome any suggestions and changes you have. I realize there is a difference, but since it is "me" who is being deleted, it does feel like being banished! Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)
Thank you all for helping me get the listing done correctly. A notable author, perhaps, but certainly not a wikified one--until now! I am a fast learner, again, thanks and I really do love the site, it is great what you are all doing here. Much respect, Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)
I didn't put the book cover there and totally do not mind if you take it off, that book is 3 years old! I am a consultant at eDiets.com, I don't even own stock in the publicly traded company much less the sole operator! That is not an accurate statement on which to base a delete decision. NOT correct. I am the Master Motivator at eDiets.com and DO NOT own that company. I own my own company that makes my LifeChanger program, which is not even available for purchase at eDiets.com! Julia Havey — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article makes no assertion of notability. If there were an article on every retainer had by every noble in history, wikipedia would explode ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say he's notable. A Clown in the Dark 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 03:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All 57 Google results for this "religion" are either completely unrelated or Wikipedia mirrors. Article cites no sources, is pretty much all by one author, and says the religion is "shroud in secrecy" and "a youthful religion in its exposure to the public". Unreferenced template was applied in March and the author has not come forth with any references. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7. Royboycrashfan 18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable organization. There is a New Era Wrestling but this doesn't seem to be it. Eron 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages, which are for wrestlers associated with the above organization:
The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 19:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
another non notable japanese retainer. 54 google hits. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains assertion of notability--"commercial success"--but there's no evidence of that notability. See WP:MUSIC for Wikipedia's criteria for bands. Chick Bowen 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, though someone should really take a crack at rewriting this one in a good way. --Cyde Weys 03:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is this article almost assuredly incorrect (I've been using "fuckton" for a years before today), it seems like an attempt by a Slashdot user to claim notoriety via Wikipedia. At best, "fuckton" is a Wiktionary entry. FreelanceWizard 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?". Non notable retainer. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not buying the claim in the article. I really don't believe there's a sport called "Pez eating," and a google search on this fellow (including "Conor Butler" +"pez") turns up nothing that seems relevant. This looks like a vanity page to me, but I'm not 100% positive -- thus is why I'm nominating it for AFD and not just sticking a CSD A7 notice on it. FreelanceWizard 02:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax—or just plain nonsense? Parts are obviously cribbed from Himura Kenshin; I'm not sure if there is an actual person hidden behind that, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A teacher at a high school. Does this sound notable to you, folks? WhisperToMe 02:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalistroadster 04:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 19:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has changed much since first nomination, but not in a satisfactory way. Furthermore there is absolutely no discourse on anarchist law to be found anywhere (like at [11]) Intangible 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, a redir to Natural Law or a disambig would be better.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsensical fake religion, possibly connected with Matthew Martin (which is also up for deletion). Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has no references/sources, is very editorially conceived, and has scant encyclopedic value. That's my vote. Downwards 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a copyright violation cut and pasted from an unsigned band's MySpace page, see [12]. Three Yahoo! hits, including Wikipedia, when searching for "The Last Project" and lead singer "Andrew Ferguson" [13]. No CDs per search on Amazon.com. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Ataricodfish 03:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete at author's request. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" is a collection of a whopping two external links. Brittanica, assume the position! Appropriate Username 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged prod, with reason "zero Google hits- thus, non-notable (and probably made-up)." And that's for game which is online...
The result of the debate was redirect to List of licensed Monopoly game boards. -- No Guru 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is entirely redundant. There's a formatted text list on the page Monopoly (game) and a second list exclusively to the Hasbro-licensed Monopoly-branded games at List of licensed Monopoly game boards with photographic references. --JohnDBuell 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was noconsensustohavethisarticledeleted. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant Policy
Just because this is a popular phrase/slogan doesnt mean it needs a article. It's been a merge/redirect candidate before and moved to various McDonalds articles, yet various authors have moved it back here. If there are any solutions, ie re-directing or transwiki it somewhere, then I won't stand in the way. NO VOTE for now --Arnzy (Talk) 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Article was prodded and prod removed. -- RHaworth 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move/merge to Wiktionary? Rmcii 04:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. 237 Google hits, no alexa data. Bige1977 04:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity San Saba 04:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems incredibly like a vanity club page to me. I put a speedy (CSD A7) notice on the page, which was then promptly deleted by an anonymous user, so I'm tossing it onto AFD. Google provides no relevant hits. FreelanceWizard 04:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Deleted by TKE. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page useless, the talk in the page is not involved with Give Me Novacaine. Weirdy Ain't have no user talk page you nitwit 05:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete, per reasons given in debate. SushiGeek 08:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 05:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, I popped a proposed deletion notice on this article because it didn't even attempt to assert how this middle school is at all notable compared to any other middle school. I ran a google search on the school and didn't find anything particularly impressive about it besides the fact that it's a school. Thinking that I may have just been crazy in remembering that schools usually need to be particularly notable to make it into Wikipedia, and wondering if it was proper that my proposed deletion was shot down, I ran a search of past deletions and found that such articles usually end up having to go to AFD for a decision to be made. So, here we are, with this school article nominated for deletion on the grounds that it's barely a stub and not of encyclopedic notoriety. FreelanceWizard 05:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a school, ergo it's notable. Keep. --Gene_poole 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep - Turnstep 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Move to Wiktionary? Rmcii 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, non-notable San Saba 05:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable 'con artist' and/or hacker according to Google. Speculative. contributing editor removed prod. Delete. Rockpocket 05:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete both pages as copyvio, with no redirect per Mukdderat's point. Future non-copyvio versions are encouraged and should not have this AFD held against them. Turnstep 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afd - dupe of Social_security_disability_insurance Rmcii 05:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, see WP:WEB. Rishodi 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self promoting not notable tango group from Poland; no recorded album. Mariano(t/c) 06:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable teacher. WP:BIO, professor test, WP:NOT etc ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of page surely does not belong in Wikipedia. The Peacocks is a completely generic and run of the mill shopping centre. If anyone is really interested they can follow links to local websites from the Woking page Al17 07:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nn bio entered without his authorization. He was erroneously listed as having contributed to The 1 Second Film project. A project which has over 3800 other minor contributors and for which virtually any individual in the world can purchase a production credit for a minimum of $1.00 --Hetar 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sorority. (Founding date would be useful in determining notability, but is obviously false in the article) Tangotango 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do you're research before you go tagging articles. . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
To will- I didn't intend on deleting the "articles for deletion" section. Why aren't you in school anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
to Isotope23- I don't believe in changing peoples minds. You will believe in what you will want to believe. Very few people can be convinced otherwise. The fact that you don't have anything better to do outside this website is a sidenote. Zeta Sigma Phi is a national sorority, but It has only one chapter. The possibiliy of keeping the organization local to USC has been discussed, however the national board has never been dismantled. The national board deals with things outside the scope of the happenings of the group and is its own seperate entity. Again I urge you to do some research. You're whole argument is that Zeta is not a national sorority but it is which shows you are ignorant to the argument and therefore should not be commenting on it. You are refering to the lack of national presense as far as numbers of organizations across the country. What in you're esteemed opinion, constitutes the number of organizations a group must have before it deserves its bit of cyberspace? 15, 20? This is a usless argument. to Stacylynnaustin- Copyright you're Letters. If you're organizations letters were copyrighted, there wouldn't be another Zeta Sigma Phi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Zeta Sigma Phi is a national sorority. It has a national board with Almni and non alumni members completly seperate from the college group. I'm not just calling it a national sorority, it has an actual National board, something i'm guessing you're "research" didn't turn up. I don't see why National groups with limited individual chapters don't deserve a wikipedia page. You aren't paying for the service, so I don't see why you would be against it personally. . its not attacking anyone and its only non notable to you because you are a non sorority member in detroit. Further Stacylynnaustin's group didn't try hard enough to trademark the letters. They weren't trademarked for the almost 10 years before the USC group came into existance, leading our founders to believe they were a local non expanding chapter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamarastern (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Tamarastern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.67.141 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons? well there are a bunch: Advertisement, WP:VAIN, WP:WEB, and it is also very poorly written. Delete Geedubber 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 08:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as an A7 candidate, but being a goalkeeper for the League 1 team Gillingham does seem to be an assertion of notability. Players in the Premier League are easy keepers, but I am not sure about players further down in the league system. I think this deserves discussion so I'm bringing it here and abstaining from voting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author of the article (or rather stub) I say keep, however I must admit, the information in the stub is pretty much all the information there is available on him at present. I think that the information on Danny Knowles should be kept, whether it requires its own section or whether we should follow Captainkrainer's solution is up to you. GillsMan 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy. Tawker 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert, should likly be speedied. San Saba 08:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No way is this advertisement, this SHOULD stay. This is one of the largest shops in New York City and is pretty much a landmark. Its popularity exceeds that of X-10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.59.140 (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Moved to RfD by B.B. --blue520 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
False spelling B.B. 08:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. — Apr. 26, '06 [04:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Uh, this is encyclopedic because? Take it down, and pass it around -- I mean, Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge with Dulwich College. SushiGeek 08:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete - WP is not a crystal ball. Tawker 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from looking like a film made up in school one day this is pretty much all crystal ball stuff:
I'm consequently nominating it for deletion; it can come back when it actually exists and meets notability criteria. Tonywalton | Talk 09:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]it was presumed to be done in June 2006, but this was to positive. It is re-calculated to be done in late 2006. It is estimated to be 3 hours when it is done, it is being considered to be cut into three movies instead of one, with approximately one hour each. It is also likely to be more heavily clipped then before,
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently POV: who says they are "significant"? Unsourced. Looks like Original research. If a legitimate list does have some status in academia then we need an article under that precise name - but I don't know what that would be, unless a journal has published some market research showing what academics in the field believe to be the top advances. Mais oui! 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Curps due to mass vandalism by sockpuppet accounts. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously kept no consensus, but discussion on WP:AN/I indicates substantial sockpuppetry in the VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) mould. The subject is a failed political candidate whose only real claim to notability appears to be as a "founder member" of Free the Children, but this membership was not significant enought to be mentioned in the article for the group itself and there is no indication of how many such there are (and indeed no apparent citation for the claim). For the record I wanted to nominate this myself anyway but was put off by the recent second nom; had I realised at the time that it was a sockfest I'd have done so.
Relisting, then, for a (hopefully) clean debate. Just zis Guy you know? 09:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge (already done) and delete, despite the fact that this is indeed a funny article title.
Merged into List of U.S. state foods --CapitalR 10:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a howto guide and this topic is too small to have it's own entry. The reference on Balloon should be enough. Nick Catalano contrib talk 10:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete - advert. Tawker 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a web development company, which doesn't appear to meet our inclusion criteria, and the article reads like an advertisement. Was tagged to speedy delete, but I don't feel it meets CSD. Doesn't seem much point ((prod))ing since there are frequent edits by the original creator. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. SushiGeek 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy as advertising, but may have merit so sent here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person who emailed info-en informing us of the CopyVio has asked for the page to be put up for deletion also. They probably don't want to keep checking the article to protect their copyright. This is a comment, and not a vote - I'm simply going thru the deletion nomination procedures for them. Jeandré 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way too early for this page to exist. You can't compare a book with a film that hasn't even entered pre-production yet, and probably won't for at least another year. Maelwys 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seem to be a trademared name of some sort. Lingered around in Wikipedia for too long. Dangherous 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this unsourced article, it seems as though a common term (tier) is borrowed to create a subject. As it stands, it violates WP:NOR. PJM 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martha Ramsey added the AfD tag to the article saying it's a well known hoax. I'm subst:ing and finishing the nomination to make sure. I have no comment as I don't feel like web searching. Optichan 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached; please add new discussion below this notice. Proto||type 11:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable webpage with an alexa ranking over 1,000,000. Prod removed by author. Delete. Grandmasterka 12:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa ranking doesn't tell the whole story. The VLRC is a unique metasearch engine in that it only indexes information pages recommended by teachers, librarians and library and educational consortia world-wide. As such, it represents the collective wisdom of the educational/library community. The purpose of this one-of=a-kind search engine is to help serve as a guide to students for valid information for school research projects. You may deem it "unremarkable", I see it as a needed resource. - Dr. Michael Bell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.163.196 (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
listcruft Hirudo 12:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
listcruft; their most important songs have their own article anyway Hirudo 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is not the yellow pages Hirudo 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by someone without comment or change to article. Band in question appears to fail WP:MUSIC, is unsigned and hasn't released an album yet. Heycos 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 06:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable poet. Works do not appear to be very notable, and only about 70 Google hits on him, [26] a significant number being a news story about how he got caught up in a mob while out in public (he was apparently only mentioned because he was one of the witnesses who spoke with the reporter). Claimed notability in the article is not cited --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Consider my vote to be a Keep now in light of the evidence dug up by the dedicated researchers below. I would withdraw the entire nomination if not for the delete vote that still remains below. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neologisms, this seems to be a company name among other random things. Lacking in evidence Dangherous 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can fin Nothing of use in this page - check its history, and you'll see a big load of tosh. Delete Dangherous 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"something as uncool or an indication that something sucked/sucks". Not for an encyclopedia Dangherous 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An awful disambig page. The word has a meaning in Dutch, see Wikt:kenden, but other bits seem a bit useless Dangherous 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese term, wrong script Dangherous 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete, does not fit Wiktionary criteria. Tawker 06:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline case for this I feel. A slang term with a fair bit of good search result. I don't know if you wish to keep this though Dangherous 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charity-ruft? Dangherous 12:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be bandcruft. No references are given (the "footnotes" all refer to the band's own website). The language is POV throughout; the claims of significant following seem to be very exaggerated. I can find no sources that indicate any particular notability. — Haeleth Talk 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Was deleted after 5 days on prod, not sure what its doing on AfD. Tawker 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. This is was a contested prod submission Wikibofh(talk) 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography of a guy who played 1 minute in NCAA basketball last year. Entire article seems to be a copyright violation as well. Metros232 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Webcomic hosted on Deviant Art that's less than two months old and has just 20 strips. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 06:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft Will (E@) T 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as an A7 speedy, but did appear to asser notability although the article is not written in a neutral manner. A Google check seems to indicate that this person has some real CD releases and won a Parent's Choice award. [27]. Not entirely certian over reliability of all the sources, and I'm not too inclined to research this now either. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete per CSD A7. Tawker 05:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bar band. Albums mentioned, but not seemingly available anywhere. No label information to remove doubt that these were privately produced. GWO 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity page --Dunstan 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated for deletion here: [32] AfD resulted in no consensus. Primary problem is that this is not verifiable. Only source is for the supposed Atari 2600 version of the game and is comprised of one screenshot of a cartridge hosted on a geocities site. Even if you take that to be verifiable based on the screenshot, it can't really be considered a reliable source. The PC version information is completely unsourced. --Isotope23 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All non-notable and don't include why they merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 15:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and doesn't include why it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 15:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looked like nonsense, but I did find some references to this term. In which case it should probably be transwikied. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An amateur wrestler who has yet to make his debut in the ring. Non-notable. DJ Clayworth 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was - Deckiller deleted "Freddy DeAngelis" (CSD A7/nonsense). --blue520 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity; page creator removed speedy delete tag.Keppa 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No footballer with such name played for Krylya Sovetov. Claimed to be a Bosnian international, but Google gives zero hits. Article created by User:Krstjan2006. Conscious 16:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as nn bio. Wickethewok 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity and non-notable article about a 13 year-old. AFDed a second time (see the noinclude section in this AFD)... Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like non-notable vanity. (The bulk of the article was written by User:Gmatrius.) Also has some POV and verifiability problems; nothing that couldn't be cleaned up, but it wouldn't leave much of an article afterwards. Adam Atlas 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Moved to CSD. Kotepho 19:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article dupes Master Data Management Stephenpace 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bizzare and unencyclopedic evaluation of an appartment building, has been though afd once, but the article hasnot been touched since and is still unfit for an encyclopedia.--Peta 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete, fits CSD A7 anyways. Tawker 05:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable filmmaker. His only claims to faim are some unspecified awards he won in highschool, and the fact that is he is a producer of the The 1 Second Film, a film for which anyone can obtain a production credit for as little as one dollar. --Hetar 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a prod tag on this; it was removed (with comments as detailed below on its talk page). It is is unencyclopædic and from this: Suppliers of online, distance and blended learning courses in Ireland are free to use this page to post limited information and links on their courses. is an attempt to use WP as a website. As such I'm taking this to AfD. Tonywalton | Talk 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title says it all. Article about upcoming Dashboard Confessional album, that is as of yet untitled. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. HarryCane 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR, unverified, nn exploit. Doesn't seem major enough to report in a WP article. Werdna648T/C\@ 13:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was orphaned. Relisting on April 21st. Ral315 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted.--Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously unlisted.listing now --Melaen 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily redirected, no further action required. Just zis Guy you know? 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly created this article in an attempt to organize the topic. It is a copy of a better established page, disconnection, and if there is ambiguity, a better page would be the existing disconnection (scientology) page. I apologize for the tedium of this request; I am a newbie and I'm just becoming familiar with the process. I think this arcticle should be a speedy deletion. Bantab 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 08:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable recipe. WP is not a cookbook. Tango 18:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable, Drinking Game Unique To a Single University Ctsims 18:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was del. `'mikka (t) 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del original research, wikipedia:verifiability, heavy POV. The Phobia and -phob- artciles cover the topic adequately. `'mikka (t) 18:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus - Keep. Tawker 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn and possible vanity M1ss1ontomars2k4 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are also assuming that I am from the University of Windsor "All" which is not the case. Blogger82.
The article does not meet basic requirements set out by wikipedia. Why keep something that does not qualify?
President of the youth wing for one of Canadas lesser powerful political parties. According to wikipedia, for a political individual to have a page they must have held office in some level of government. Marlowe fails to meet that. Also this has been up now for five days. And should be deleted soon.
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article not only "may require cleanup", it is not fit to exist as part of wikipedia in its current state. I propose to delete the article unless somebody who knows more about the topic (not me) can make a complete rewrite and cite a source other than "America's Most Wanted Official Website" Mütze 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see the relevance of this article for an encyclopedia. If we start creating articles for every dead body that is found in the US, we never finish. Maybe one could create a "WikiCrime" branch of Wikipedia exlusively for this. Delete it. --84.139.7.182 18:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it is notable enough. 665 google hits. -- Szvest 18:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (would fit A7 speedy). Tawker 05:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an advertisement NurMisur 19:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily userfied as non-notable autobiography. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. A rather unremarkable entrepreneur. He is also an instructor at the California College of the Arts, but he's an adjunct. Article appears to be vanity; it was created and edited nearly exclusively by Posttool (talk · contribs), which is the name of Karam's company. Mangojuice 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was A7 Delete. Tawker 07:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was speedied for CSD-A7, but notability implied. Switched to PROD, but tag removed without comment, so now comes here. Article is decending into madness toward the end. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was speedied for CSD-A7, but notability implied. Changed to PROD, but tag removed without comment, although a section has been added giving a POV on importance of the person. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Platon is the author of three books about ocean racing: “The Russians are coming”, “Formula 1 of the oceans”, “Skipper’s notes”(in Russian) published in Russia and Ukraine with an audience of 35,000.
Eugene Platon is the leader of the Russian Project for the 2009-10 Volvo Ocean Race
Platon 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eplaton (talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as ... persons." JeffW 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. SushiGeek 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable website, article is a dicdef.--Zxcvbnm 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Google employee; 39 Google hits. Auto-bio? Haakon 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find confirmation that such a character exists; he's supposed to come from a footnote in the New Testament. Delete unless verified. GTBacchus(talk) 20:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Planned film for 2007, "the debut feature from Downending Films", article written by Downending. Director, writer, cast, pretty much unknowns. Let's at least wait for the thing to get made before we decide whether it's worth noting. Fan1967 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems made up to me Nationalparks 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally proposed by User:Gorgonzilla; fixing headling because ((afd2)) seems to be broken Elkman - (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Unlawful Combatant. This is simply a POV fork of Unlawful combatant. The only substantial edits come from one editor. The text here does not contribute usefully. Plurals do not get separate articles. The premise of this article is that the term is US army venacular, it is not, the use by the Bush admin is explicitly making reference to the Geneva protocols --Gorgonzilla 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Merge - If any content can be salvaged for Unlawful Combatant or Gitmo then let it be so salvaged. Otherwise, I agree; this is a POV fork and should be deleted and redirected.Captainktainer 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Smeetfrog Park. The Smeet Frog does not exist--it's a hoax some people are trying to establish in Ypsilanti, Michigan. See here, and here for info on the project. · rodii · 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to seem nitpicky, but unless Wikipedia is planning to remove the articles on a bunch of other unknown/who cares? relatives of famous people who have not done anything "significant" in their lives, then I don't see any need to delete the Jack Berman article.
Otherwise, more information about Jack Berman should be included -- such as the fact he was Dianne Feinstein's first husband (they were divorced) and the father of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Katherine Feinstein, born Katherine Berman (she adopted the name Feinstein - after her father's murder, I think - so that people would make the connexion between her and her mother, and be more likely to vote for her.
In short, the problem is not necessarily that Jack Berman was a "nobody," but there's so little information about him in the article that it isn't possible to tell whether he was or was not a "somebody." For all we know, he may have been involved in arguing an important court case.
Or, he may just be a worthless nobody as one of the writers below suggests -- like *all* the rest of us, ultimately.
22 April 2006 23h50 PDT
I hate to seem heartless, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I don't see any indication that either Mr. Berman's death or the award named after him is notable. Even if they were, notability does not attach automatically. Daniel Case 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Cocopuffberman 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web host that doesn't explain why it belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fails WP:WEB and is plain adspam. Delete Ardenn 21:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Shanel § 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
listcruft without additional value. Perhaps it can be merged to the main British Virgin Islands article, but definitely doesn't deserve an article of its own Hirudo 21:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Polish football firm, no signs of notability, article has more info on general crime fighting activities in Poland and England than info on the firm. There are loads of hooligan gangs larger than this one that hasn't got an article, and that shouldn't have an article either. – Elisson • Talk 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gamecruft. I really don't think we need a page on each move or type of move in video games Hirudo 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable webcomic. Rory096(block) 21:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 08:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is hardly notable. No awards to her credit. Has roughly fifty films, if we are to believe IMDB (other pornography-oriented databases such as IAFD and AFDB list far less movies). Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable artist, no sources quoted for notability even after a Talk page discussion. This has been through an AfD before (result was a unanimous Delete). This time round was speedied twice, then prod'ed; each time the notice was removed without comment, so we're back here again. If consensus is to delete again, we may consider protected the page from re-creation Gwernol 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated after being deleted under PROD, so essentially an ex post facto contested PROD. I don't deny the truthfulness of some of the things asserted in this article. I live in Berlin and hear people code-switching between German and Turkish all the time. However, I can find no evidence that this phenomenon is known as Aleturkish or Aletürkisch. I can find no evidence that any of the books listed under "sources" actually exist. I would fully support a verifiable article citing reputable sources (that I can actually find on the Internet or in the library) on the topic of German/Turkish code-switching, but this article isn't that. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was del. `'mikka (t) 05:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del wikipedia:Verifiability problem for this particular meaning of the word ("retouching"). `'mikka (t) 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 01:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFT... ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem very notable, just 187 Ghits, not all relevant. Rory096(block) 22:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically advertising, and I don't think anything can be done to it that will make it look like it isn't advertising. -- Grev 23:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor fad that appears to be limited to one community, judging by the relatively large amount of editors to the article, I suspect the article has been posted on said message board for improvement by the posters. -Obli (Talk)? 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 08:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem entirely notable. She may have a listing at IMDB [51], but other than that she doesn't seem to have a following that I can discern. Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep her on here. theres no reason to take her off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.195.245 (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Pi Day The story on this page seems made up to me. Nationalparks 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy per G1. Tawker 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity/nn Amcfreely 00:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a better biography than my first entry. This should satisfy all objections. I was lazy and just copied bio from company homepage. jspugh
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website which has consistently been linkspammed in other articles by article author. Haakon 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]