The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Tawker 06:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About some Muslim student association. The article says nothing about it. This doesn't sound notable at all. WhisperToMe 23:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Tawker 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About some Muslim student association. The article says nothing about it. This doesn't sound notable at all. WhisperToMe 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a walled garden of almost a hundred articles that I proposed for deletion. All PROD tags have been removed, so they come here. I'll nominate them one at a time or in small groups to avoid problems like those seen with the mass nomination of Polynesian mythology articles. This is obviously fancruft, highly specific material about a fictional world. These articles go into excrutiating detail on the specifications of fictional giant robots from a Japanese cartoon. It's not of general or encyclopedic appeal, and this series already has a Wiki at WikiCities anyway. It needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a non-notable weekly show on a university radio station that doesn't have its own article. This is a vanity article. It was created by User:Tubbywsou. This is the show's host. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable webcomic hosted on the non notable SpiderForest collective, here. The spiderforest domain has an Alexa rank of over 300,000 and this is just one of the many comics on the obscure network. You can also see their forums here, not exactly buzzing with activity. - Hahnchen 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think people have absolutely abandoned the comixPedia wiki. It just doesn't have the high profile shelf space of Wikipedia's List of webcomics nor the prestige. Anyway, this comic, like many others, isn't there and isn't notable. This article is the work of sole contributor and its subject can be seen here. The website does not attain any Alexa rank, its forums are mostly dead and Googling "Norm and Cory" brings up 60 links whereas "Norm & Cory" brings up 40. This is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 03:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is mostly original research with bits and pieces of Capcom information to support it. Pretty much all encyclopedic and relevant info can be found on the Ryu (Street Fighter), Ken Masters and Akuma (Street Fighter) pages. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Fictional wars from a Japanese cartoon that involves battles between huge anthropomorphic robots resembling samurai wearing different colors of car fenders. Part of a huge walled garden I am nominating for deletion. Brian G. Crawford 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school rowing club (Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School)
The result of the debate was Delete - Snowball. Tawker 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actors, delete as per WP:BIO Bjelleklang - talk 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted article. Reconsideration of the decision should occur through the undeletion process. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being non-notable actor. Does not pass WP:BIO Bjelleklang - talk 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - an actor who's appeared on Friends and the Bold and the Beautiful is notable, even if the actor is barely old enough to speak. - Richardcavell 01:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to The Sims. Thryduulf 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, prod tag apparently removed by site founder. Objectivist-C 19:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was BJAODN and delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio. Probably vanity. First version created by User:Amolchawathe was userfied. This version created by user:Aliciaanderson who has edited no other articles. -- RHaworth 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of principle, I bring vanity pages here for a notability check. An interesting slip by the creator confirms this as vanity. -- RHaworth 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr Haworth,
Thank you for putting the issue of the proposed deletion of my Wikipedia entry up for discussion. I am new, as you know, and am not sure how and where to respond to the issues.
One of the reasons I decided to write the page is because I was surprised to discover that I am mentioned in Wikipedia a few times, and thought it would be useful for everyone if I provided a link to basic factual information about myself.
In addition, I have appeared in a good deal of newspaper articles around the world, as a spokesperson for various groups and issues. I think it is important to those groups and issues that accurate information be available, in order to lend credibility to the statements made. Because it is my job to make the statements. For example I have been featured in the Irish Times 127 times since 2002. One of the latest is reprinted below.
As an aside, while I am taking evening classes, I am not a 'student' in the sense that I do work as a lawyer, but do not want to advertise that.
The Tara issue is high profile here in Ireland, and my case has just been appealed to the Supreme Court, so it will run for another couple of years. Much inaccurate information has appeared about me in the media, where I have been branded a "legal terrorist" and other things I won't mention.
[a google search might give you a better idea of the situation]
Kind regards,
Vincent Salafia
[frenzy is at the cost of everything else Irish Times Sat, Mar 18, 06]
Oh, and I did notice a category in WP:BIO that might be more suitable than political figures: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuathal (talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was no consensus. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is irrelivant and contains no useful encyclopedic information. As such, it should be removed from Wikipedia permanently.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RabinicLawyer (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was freaky. I mean delete. Chick Bowen 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is on a patent application. Only relevant ghits [2] seem to be awe and gawking over how great the concept is (based solely on the application). No apparent proof of existence. original research and/or non-notable. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous self-promotional google hits e.g. CD Baby, but no obvious notability, per WP:BAND Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 06:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable street, borderline travel guide also Delete Jaranda wat's sup 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP WP:VAIN Non-notable company, self promotion John Nagle 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two (2) hits in Google, both on Myspace pages. The company's web site doesn't even have any products live yet. The company's web site allows people to "join" and reports only 7 members. "prod" was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Vamp:Willow. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is either copy pasted and copyvio, or original research. Perhaps whomever summarily removed my prod would like to defend this wall of text? Appropriate Username 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it out on a speedy basis as clearly original research (signed!) etc. --Vamp:Willow 11:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic hosted on Angelfire, with the article written by the author. Absolutely nn, only reason it's been at Wikipedia so long is because nothing links there. - Hahnchen 02:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A page claiming that this guy was in Rolling Stone magazine, although he hardly shows up on google. Probably a hoax. Delete. Grandmasterka 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a non-notable academic. A few hundred Google hits, but any professor would have that. Can't really see any notability. JW1805 (Talk) 02:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories. There are a few entries that link to timelines that are inside articles, but I also found quite a few links to sections that don't exist (and removed the links in that case). JeffW 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Whilst many editors seem to be convinced that this is either a game guide or "cruft", it actually has the form of a glossary of the type that is quite common on Wikipedia, and there is significant evidence that the bulk of the terms are in common use and are referenced on relevant gaming sites. The popularity of this particular game and the sheer size of the population of players is also a factor here. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather cruftish and unencyclopedic to me, something that is probably more appropriate at WOWwiki. Delete per WP:NOT. --Hetar 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Eivindt@c 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain, in terms of Wikipedia policy, what the difference is between this AfD (and other deleted game articles quoted as precedent) and the articles I've just linked? Is there a reason that Point 8 here says "video game guides" rather than the less specific "game guides?
We need consistency. I'd actually be willing to argue that all of these glossaries are non-encyclopaedic, but if we keep one, especially one as crufty as List_of_Internet_slang (which can almost certainly be found on thousands of other, more appropriate sites), then precedent should be established that we keep all. --ES2 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cowbell14 00:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Book of Nehemiah. – Alphax τεχ 07:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, no book sources cited, vanity page? 999 03:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete the current version (a copy is currently at User:Stanley011/Robert Federer) - Liberatore(T) 12:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seeming nn, but he did invent some paper-whitening thing and he is Roger's dad M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted--expanded upon and cleaned up, clearly, but not deleted--the study was published in a notable publication and seemed to have a significant impact upon the field Stanley011 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion, and is clearly original research, but there's no clear speedy criterion for this sort of thing. Should be deleted though; Wikipedia is not the place to publish research. Chick Bowen 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:WWIN: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Any relevant information is already contained in Color blindness. -AED 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a vanity article to me. Is the associate professor of voice at Ithaca College really notable enough to warrant his own encyclopedia article? ekedolphin 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject wishes this article deleted because he is "not anyone noteworthy". (I have no opinion on this nomination, but it doesn't make a very strong claim of notability.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was moot - speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this article does not proclaim notability. I could be wrong on this, but it comes across as a autobiography of a nonnotable group. Kukini 06:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I only found 3 hits to the Silentarmy to which this article refers on Google. Kukini 06:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as listcruft, de-prodded on the grounds that it's a disambiguation page. However, neither item that's being "disambiguated" even has an article to disambiguate from any other article in the first place. Icarus 06:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as nonsense. JIP | Talk 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gibberish? Dictionary definition? Hoax? Take your pick. Dspserpico 07:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information is already covered in the main Inuyasha (character) article. A redirect would be pointless, as this title does not make sense. Inuyasha is Sesshomaru's brother, not his son. Icarus 07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many non-notable student political groups at university campuses. Other similar groups don't even have an article.--PatCheng 08:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Very new site - unable to establish notability. —Whouk (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect; nothing to merge that wasn't already there. Chick Bowen 02:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is made redundant by the existence of the Milano-Sanremo 2006 article. The official title of the race is "Milano-Sanremo" as opposed to the "Milano-San Remo" this article uses. Thethinredline 08:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't establish notability. Dismas|(talk) 08:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Blatant hoax/ non-notable biography silliness.--Sean Black (talk?) 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this should actually be speedied as patent nonsense about a person for whom there has been no assertion of notability WP:CSD G1 and A7. However, this recently created article has attracted quite a few edits and I thought that in light of that AfD might be a better option Politepunk 09:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(speedy) Delete - per my nomination - Politepunk 09:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, after the commission of the sitcom "Mike: Attack of the Plapps" I feel this is a noteworthy article. Strong Keep Max Brown 09:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (this comment was made by 212.219.117.140 —Whouk (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I disagree, after the commission of the sitcom "Mike: Attack of the Plapps" I feel this is a noteworthy article. Strong Keep - Max Brown2 11:07, 24 April 2006
Strong Keep Very informative, accurate artical.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actors/"props". Bjelleklang - talk 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to P&O. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed, so bringing to AfD. This was a name used by P&O for a ferry service and, as such, not-notable. Eusebeus 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was recommend possible redirect to bianca.com
Prodded by User:Maustrauser as advertising (which it isn't), removed by User:Kappa; however, the information here is covered more extensively and articulately at Bianca.com, so this is unnecessary and redundant. Eusebeus 09:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by User:JuliannaRoseMauriello, deprodded by User:Kappa on grounds that it sounds notable. A quick check, however, determines that it isn't. Under 200 Google hits [[5]], many of which are Wikipedia mirror sites. Eusebeus 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by User:RayaruB as Non-notable game that never came out of development ; deprodded by User:Kappa. The unrelenting use of the conditional tense here would seem to suggest that, while this might have merited an article had it ever actually been made, its actual lack of existence serves as an impediment to its encyclopedic value. Eusebeus 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect to Cluedo. Flowerparty☀ 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by User:RayaruB as non-notable game ; deprodded by User:Kappa, so here it is at AfD. Non-notable release. Eusebeus 09:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge per nom, although though this is articles for deletion. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Kappa deprod of the company founded by an engineer who created the obscure tt-scale model railroad. This company did exist ([[7]]), but it is now defunct. The information could be merged into the TT scale article, which is hardly overwhelmed with detail. Eusebeus 09:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep all. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "classic text", part of a walled garden of probable collegecruft from a single user that also includes:
Many of these articles have gone down the speedy/tag removed without comment > PROD/tag removed without comment path, so now they come here. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable is an interesting term. Just who gets to decide that and what are the implications to one of throwing it around flippantly? 105 people appoint someone a ranging expert...the august REDVERS...on whatever he wishes to rudely lambast and that is the basis of governance? Talk about the Wild West!
I notice there are not articles concerning Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones--easily two of the most important active political scientists in America by any serious expert's opinion...but no article on them? Obviously not notable. No article on Charles Perrow? Insignificant? No, forgive me, not notable. What would qualify one to call Charles Perrow or Dwight Waldo not notable, I wonder. Waldo has probably been read in Korean more than the sum total of all the people who will ever gaze upon REDVER's obscure writings he lists so pridefully at the bottom of his user page. What expertise and degree would you have called upon to state that Frederick C. Mosher is not notable when his work is translated in 8 languages and could probably be discussed by senior government officials in 10s of countries? I'm just curious what sort of definition of encyclopedia that might fulfill?
I was obviously mistaken in thinking that the purpose here is to start a thread that expands underexplored knowledge based on one's legitimate and demonstrable learning as expressed in articles. Now I find I did that only to have it ridiculed by the ignorant Mr. X...or REDVERS as he prefers. The Encyclopedia of Public Administration which would mirror most of what I put in here costs hundreds of dollars but would have been neither succinct nor wholly accurate. Just what is the point of the silly articles on obscure European punk bands and photos of even more obscure Belgian fountains you seem to prefer as content (if WP is not a free resource) when there is almost no discussion of the primary field that studies government bureaucracy and dozens of allied areas? I suppose it's just yet another Internet power trip of some frustrated and indenty-starved persons without the guts to sign their name or to discuss their qualifications on their web pages or in their edits. I suppose this resort to insult by REDVERS when someone has donated their time and expertise is deemed acceptable etiquette here. Shame. What a puny thing to do...to use your administrative authority to go through a contrib file to systematically delete contributions. That is strikingly ugly and remarkably small. People like you are exactly what the idea of free software and knowledge is not about. Oh dear. I had heard this was the deal of late here, but I was so naively hopeful. What a bizarre ethic you have; thank goodness we have relatively few power abusers as serious editors in the print world. Congratulations, you have preserved your fiefdom from another serious contributor. Ryan Lanham 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was uhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prodded by Messedrocker and by Rory096: It doesn't look like this will become a great article. Even with some improvement, I doubt "shark attack movie" is any sort of genre Deprodded and so brought to AfD. The major quality issues concerning the article aside (it is practically unreadable), these are three unnotable made for tv movies. Eusebeus 10:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Creator objected to article being userfied. -- RHaworth 10:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How to make "userfied" ? Ashutoshsaxena 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Skysmith: self-promotions - see the user name, but deprodded. The article itself happily provides grounds for its own deletion: They are currently unsigned, and at this point have released no material other than demos that appear on their Official website and MySpace page. Eusebeus 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links, and not mere collections of internal links except for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. -- Jim Bown 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A group of hentai fans whose only claim to notability is that they're translating some games into English. Fails WP:V, since the only sources for their claims are their own website and some other fansites; also fails WP:VAIN, since the page seems to have been created by a member of the group. If this information belongs in Wikipedia, it is as a footnote on the pages for the games in question, not as a separate article. ArcherXRin 11:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A group of hentai fans whose only claim to notability is that they're translating some games into English. Fails WP:V, since the only sources for their claims are their own website and some other fansites; also fails WP:VAIN, since the page seems to have been created by a member of the group. If this information belongs in Wikipedia, it is as a footnote on the pages for the games in question, not as a separate article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror Moon. ArcherXRin 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising/unnotable. Article was prodded but tag was removed. —Xezbeth 11:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As owner of article, I would like to suggest that you gave me time to extend my article portfolio before you delete the Gimson Robotics entry? I aim to extend detailed entries on the products offered and their uses - I cannot yet find entries for the items I aim to write about - and given time I would ultimately link to other entries from the Gimson Robotics article. Please could you state how this can be considered advertising when my aim is to create a useful free resource eventually. Thank you, Ewan Gimson --Gimsonrobotics 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted How this got through to AfD, I just don't know. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
troll skx 11:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete, per nominator, really. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
troll skx 11:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the proof of the pudding!
The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another prod removed by Kappa, so bringing it over to AfD for discussion. The article is largely incoherent, but appears to be some kind of promotional effort of a nn concern. Eusebeus 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus - defaults to keep. No Guru 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prodded but removed. Album has not yet been released. Eusebeus 11:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod by Grenavitar (unsourced, doesn't show it has a basis) removed, so bringing it to Afd. The content is nonsense, but potential content is covered at Statistics and related articles. Eusebeus 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable: this author's only book is self-published. See also fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Eddy Onix. _R_ 11:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is being an octuplet enough to warrant inclusion? Delete as being non-notable! Bjelleklang - talk 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject (Rue) was a somewhat notorious poster in one single niche usenet group, and a such does not meet the notability guidelines (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)) to merit his own Wikipedia entry. Prod removed by author without meaningful objection, so bringing it to AfD. Panzerb0y 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was popular in at least a dozen newsgroups, about a dozen popular forums, and has appeared in local TV and radio, and we're talking about two decades here, he most certainly meets the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. --72.236.44.169 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Tim Rue and the VIC are very famous in the Amiga Community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.191.227 (talk • contribs)
Disagree - delete his entry he is an oxygen thief. Tim Rue is not a programmer (despite his own claims) and he was never a popular figure in the NGs except as a figure of fun. His appearances on his local TV, etc. mean nothing, he self promoted and his claims therein were not critically evaluated. The VIC is merely a set of scripts to automate some tasks - not even innovative since it was actually very similar to a previous Amiga application. He plagued usenet NGs (not just Amiga related) with his rants and was frequently banned by his ISPs. I agree he is well known but noteriety is not notability. The man (by his own admission) is mentally unstable and his claims for the VIC have never been substantiated. He gained his noteriety by abusive and OT posting not by being intelligent and posting worthwhile or interesting comments. If you leave this entry then you only pander to his self delusion that he is some sort of computing guru.
FYI he has also claimed to be a messiah and that the film "The Matrix" is based on his life!). A wacko.
Wikipedia does not have the resources to spend on verifying whether or not the claims others make about me are honest or acts of deception. This goes back to the original article. And simpler things to verify are not being considered, such as how contridictary it is for usent posters and trolls to claim they don't understand and are some sort of authority, yet I can hire a programmer to code the very same thing with no difficulty in communication. The wikipedia entry has been on the side of libel since its beginning and I only ever edited it to provide links to more current references (I said "ok" for a while.) Should I be supprised for it then to evolve to this state? Trolls are easy to manipulate and I did call on them (meat puppets you could claim - there is always a way to twist thing - simple bit flipping abstraction physics.) but not to keep the article. To remove it and it libel bias, if only for its lack of research to uncover honesty. I don't need to vote, the trolls are doing it for me and wikipedia make that possible. And doing it this way, I control it rather than me not know about it, while others use wikipedia to commit libel against me. People want to find me, there is google web, images and groups, and archive.org. Far more coverage than wikipedia could ever allow a single topic. And without the voting control of a few. That's what is real! By its own policies, wikipedia is not allowed to be an authoritive publication, to better cover its butt, perhaps such a statement should be a sub header on articles with potential issues. Even the trolls and bullies of usenet have helped me to establish prior art as in the virtual interaction configuration, by their helping to ingrain my communications about it into the archives.Wikipedia is not an archive, just another of many places I have passed, whether I knew about it or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeseas (talk • contribs)
There is alot of useless junk in usenet, a place where its easy to find those who have nothing better to do than to give others a hard time. But there is also some good stuff. And then there is the usefulness of it regardless of content value, that of multipule generated and integrated time stamps and archiving. The sort of thing that is useful for establishing prior art (re: patents and copyright issues). There are those who claim they don't understand what I'm on about and there are those who do. but the simple fact is, its an identification of unavoidable actions we all, everyone of us, apply in creating and using abstractions. In other words if someone doesn't understand these actions, it can only be due their inability to know what they themselves do. To make these actions available within the environment of computing, as functionality, simple provides the mechanism control points to enable the automation of anything, and by anyone. There is a battle over intellectual property in the form of software patents and this is what is going to break it. But that is "abstraction Physics" where the connection I (Tim Rue) have to it is making damn sure nobody can patent it, due prior art I've established thru usenet, and many other communications. Search google for "Tim rue and abstraction physics" and access the cache of teh wikipedia entry that was deleted under the arguement of it being original research. Why Amiga newsgroups? cause it was teh amiga that had all three primary user interfaces available in a usable and common enough manner that inspired me to toss together a very primitive form of the virtual interaction configuration. Or at least try to only to find there seemed to always be something lacking, but for no good reason. I know plenty enough about computer electronics and programming to know better, as I'm damn well sure others do as well.
A rather small collective of people gave me a hard time on usenet, but in a bigger picture, such as slashdot I have "excellent karma" it goes on and on and still this entry make a faulty claim that my posting style is difficult if not impossible for others to understand. Why? Further more the code to one of the VIC commands "IQ" can be run with a switch (the existance of a filename (see source code) that enable one to watch what the program does when it is run. After some simple editing of the arexx documentation for imageFX (and image process program), using IQ I was able to set in motion teh examples given in the documentation. QAlso see my comment the the discussion link to the article of my name.
As I have said, I'm findable thru google groups, web and images as well as archive.org. I don't need wikipedia, I didn't put myself here, especially if wikipedia is going to be used against its own policies to commit libel against me. I can except "computer specialist" as I am by default the leading authority on abstraction physics, but I don't crank out enough code (regardless of my education) to call myself a programmer in the traditional or old hat sense. T.Rue 03:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Quatloo as 802 google results returned for this person -- vanity page. Another deprod by Kappa, so bringing it to AfD. This is almost certainly a self-authored page, and while that does not disqualify it for inclusion, the subject lacks notability. Eusebeus 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge into Anchorage School District. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as Wikipedia is not a list repository and Possibly non-noteable, uses only one source (possible copyvio). It is in fact an exact replica of this list [[10]] cited at the bottom of the page. Eusebeus 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is being a septuplet enough to warrant inclusion? Delete as being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 12:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Urthogie as Group might be notable, but album isn't. Also, please note that the claim that its been criticized by the French government is uncited. Prod removed by Kappa, so bringing it to AfD. Relevant points could be merged to Sniper Eusebeus 12:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Imdb, subject has only appeared in one episode. Delete for being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. Bjelleklang - talk 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by SchmuckyTheCat as non-notable; prod removed so bringing it to AfD. Due to release a single album, but not until later this year. Eusebeus 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough for inclusion, does not pass WP:BIO in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 13:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TV show that appears not to exist. Zero on google and tv.com. Weregerbil 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is vanity/self-promotion for a small-town band. A Google search for "Summit Avenue" confirms the subject does not qualify as "of note" per Wikipedia guidelines ka1iban 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Describes a game played at a public school in Canada; the article appears to be written for the purpose of promoting an otherwise non-notable phenomenon. No Google hits. Delete. Choess 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this page does not seem prominent enough to appear in Wikipedia. Although the article has no references, I found the subject's homepage via Google. Dewar describes himself there as a "choral director, organist and conductor" but he has not held a major position with any well-known orchestra, choir or cathedral. His career as summarized on his homepage is no more distinguished than those of hundreds of other professional musicians working in the churches of England, none of whom appear in Wikipedia. No other Wikipedia pages link to this article. The history of this article shows that most of the content was created by a user "Drjad" who no longer exists. Other content was added by anonymous IPs. Grover cleveland 22:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Thryduulf 16:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 14-year-old from Singapore who is apparently a super-genious of some sort, and also a "Jedeye Knight." This page is vanity, the person isn't notable, and there are certainly some hoax elements to it. Delete —LrdChaos 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable new web-based company, no claim approaches WP:CORP, no Alexa rank. Prod removed without comment. Weregerbil 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pure original research, unverifiable. No references given, no notability asserted. soUmyaSch 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as neologism. Prod removed, so bringing it to AfD. Google returns 168 hits [[14]]. Term is neologistic - and exclusive to the Caribbean - although was used in print in Newsweek. Once. In 1996. Doesn't seem to have caught on and this is not the venue for its promotion. Eusebeus 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn company/website, contested prod. They seem to have a nice website with obviously homemade video on it; I couldn't find the website on a google search. Probable vanity, created by Jtbelliott (talk · contribs); the chairman of Broken sword productions is Joshua Elliott.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn website/comic, probable vanity, contested prod. Google search on "EG toons" could not come up with anything related to this, and google search for "broken sword productions" didn't yield anything either. (I have also nominated Broken sword productions, created by the same author, for deletion.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prod tag taken down, so I've brought this to afd. It is a nn 1 month old website and deserves deletion J.J.Sagnella 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef and/or neologism. Delete. Andy Saunders 12:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company; only 3100 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Tony Bruguier 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While elaborate and detailed in its explanation, this article makes no actual claim to notability, and I'm having a hard time imagining one. It seems at best to be a piece of MITiana, but I don't think it's really relevant enough to mention there. I think this is a vanity page for the game's inventor. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a fairly non-notable "rivalry," if such a rivalry even really exists at all. As a Yankee fan living in Minnesota, I can honestly say that this "rivalry" probably only exists as part of a larger "everyone wants to beat the Yankees" thing, which was previously mentioned on the New York Yankees page but now seems to be missing. At any rate it doesn't warrant its own article. RPIRED 15:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as 1 year old list never expanded beyond 2 entries, one of them a redlink and deprodded by Kappa so bringing it to AfD. This classification doesn't really exist, so this list would seem to be effectively spurious. Eusebeus 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incoherent. Utterly unencyclopaediac soUmyaSch 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn Tony Bruguier 03:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN, WP:BIO, WP:BAND ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 09:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is patent self-promotion of a book. (Using three different user IDs but one of them claims pd-self for the book cover image.) Is the book notable? -- RHaworth 06:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The web site for the book has had 15,955 unique visitors to date, so the author may qualify for an article, even if the book doesn't. Tyrenius 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)" Perhaps just change the title of the article to the Authors name if this is the case?[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn. There is no Alexa ranking. Google gives a couple of hundred hits, many of which are due to this article. I have yet to find any sign of notability and the article itself simply states that it is growing in popularity with nothing to back it up. IrishGuy 08:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Single sentence article about a small non notable regional magazine. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable gang with only 19 unique goggle hits [20] mostly Wikipedia related. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft, blatant copyvio and above all, unnecesary, considering we don't apply it to other comic characters. Kusonaga 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it should be a word, but quick websearches don't give it much support Dangherous 21:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bengali slang term. It's in wrong alphabet for a start Dangherous 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A slang interjection. I doubt even Wiktionary want it, although they do have similar articles like aarrgh, rowrbazzle and shazbot Dangherous 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete no claim to notability/lacked context. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable organization soUmyaSch 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as orphan article by anon IP 9 months old, never expanded, no sources. Deprodded by Kappa so bringing it to AfD. In addition to the reasons cited by prod, I would add that this: (1) the term does not exist; (2) the article is factually incorrect (there is no way to measure the highest mortality levels of the Black Death in Europe, but given its deadliness in cities, the highest death rates were recorded in more urbanised areas, such as the various Italian city states. (3) Finally, the plague in Norway should be covered at History_of_Norway. This should not be merged since the information is inaccurate. Eusebeus 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established; 53 google hits; Special:Whatlinkshere/OUTniagara is empty; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Cutler. Delete Qviri (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Previously prod'ed by Jahiegel; notice removed with no reason or claim to notability given. Possible hoax or exaggeration (born in 1988 and has multiple children... in Surrey, BC?) discospinster 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In accordancee with "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" from WP:MUSIC the site is eligable to be kept up. It follow the "...most prominent representative of...the local scene of a city..."
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as WP:BIO -- minor political figure, prod removed, welcome to AfD. He ran, he lost, he's doing his Masters. Eusebeus 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be a place where people can do research. I find it much more plausible that someone would want to get information about former congressional candidates than about an Inanimate Carbon Rod. DanielZimmerman 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is about more than just WP:BLP, it is also about notability. Perhaps it seems vain that I am making a stand on the notability issue on the article that I wrote about myself. However, I personally do not care if I have a Wikipedia page about me. My life will go on just fine without it and if it is the opinion that my page should be deleted then so be it. That does not change the fact that I strongly disagree with those who wish to delete ANY article just because the topic of the article is not deemed "notable" by that user's standards. My proposed compromise would be that someone else should go through the article and delete all of the information that is not verifiable, and making sure that the remaining information is follows the NPOV policy. And i will only stick my head in to the page in the manner deemed appropriate by the BLP polcy. We can then go to the other places like WP:BIO and WP:AfD and start the discussion over there as to what political races and candidates should qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia.DanielZimmerman 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as This is a very minor (i.e., non-notable) SNL skit, prod removed, bringing to AfD. Reiterate reason from the prod: More Cowbell this is not. Eusebeus 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by R3m0t, deprodded, so brought to AfD. This looks more like something from Consumer Reports than an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website - original research. Deprodded.
The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod by RHaworth who noted vanity - author is Bruce Gray so bringing it to AfD. Clearly a self-authored page, although on its own that is simply distasteful, not actual grounds for deletion. Eusebeus 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep with strong recommendation to merge to Races in the Warcraft universe as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Nifboy as minor warcraft monster and then deprodded, so here it is at AfD for a full airing of views. Eusebeus 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Proto as a nn group (CSD A7). --Hetar 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Bruce1ee as Non-notable band - no information provided to satisfy WP:MUSIC and then deprodded so bringing it to AfD. Eusebeus 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as No indication that WP:BAND is met (which is patently false) and then deprodded. Album's notability, however, is not yet established, as the content and style of the article make rather clear, since it has attracted no cleanup. Eusebeus 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus, kept with merge tag. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by JSIN as unverifiable, seems to be pushing a POV, unencyclopaedic, reads more like a guide, covered at Ticket resale, deprodded, and so bringing it to AfD. Eusebeus 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet drama neologism, non-encyclopedic, dictionary definition. Christopherlin 17:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep all as per the closes of fuddlemark and Sushigeek to the related discussions. In particular, endorsement by the proposer for deletion of the essay Wikipedia:Fancruft is not an adequate reason to give for deleting articles from Wikipedia. I suggest that those who believe that these articles are on minor subjects not worthy of their own articles consult the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and consider the recommendations there--to wit, to consider merging them. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More giant robots from the Gundam series, WP:CRUFT. I propose allowing editors till the end of this deletion discussion to transwiki to the Gundam wiki, and then deleting. Brian G. Crawford 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of deleting all these articles? What would that acheive? Absolutely nothing at all.
How do you leave proper comments????
-I,am a fan and I just came upon this article by refereal most of these facts can be confirmed if you go to the official gundam web page-http://www.gundamofficial.com/ as for some of the newer ones they can be confirmed at http://www.seed-stargazer.net/ the new O.N.A serias starring some time in june. Uhm....i dont know much about wiki but from what i gathered you can put them all in 1 fan section??? which would make it much easier to navigate and it would save space = )!!!!
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn company Hirudo 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously the opinion of a single individual, not even getting anywhere close as being widely believed Warniats 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is possibly a job for cleanup but it appears to be vanity. After numerous edits it still has horrible grammar/spelling and claims seem exaggerated Tombom23 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is non-notable, original material, no sources, and possible vanity. It has no importance. The users to add to it/created it only make edits relating to the person who is claimed to be the founder. Arbusto 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the same thing as Euler characteristic (i don't understand a word, so I can't vouch for that). An anon removed the prod with the edit summary of "(This should go to AfD not PROD)." Rory096(block) 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft, dicdef, fork from the soccer player, unlikely search term, there's just too much wrong. Delete; perhaps transwiki if it's not too much of a WP:NEO violation.Alba 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that this article has been here for a while, I cannot find a real assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC in the article. Sure, they were invited to play at some festival, but that doesn't count. Unless someone proves that these guys really are notable, this should be deleted. Grandmasterka 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be more of an OR essay than an encyclopedia article. I tried to find a suitable subject to redirect to, but couldn't come up with anything. Prod removed by anonymous editor without comment, so I am bringing it here for community discussion. --Hetar 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One-line mention of The Holy See's website. If it had any content, I'd say it should be merged into The Holy See, but there's nothing to merge. Also, "Vatican Web" doesn't seem to be an official name. Following WP:WEB guidelines, "Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization." AKADriver 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article GODDESSY. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was merge and redirect to Stephanie Adams. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable at all. 14 hits for the title, only 192 if you take off the "A.M." Rory096(block) 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 22:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing notable. Nv8200p talk 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spamvertisement that fails both WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 58,223. --Hetar 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus, discounting two anons whose first and only edits are to this page; even if just registered voters are counted it's no consensus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted here: [29]. There is no substantially new claim from the deleted version that would meet WP:MUSIC. Really this hinges on one thing: Do you consider the "2004 BMI John Lennon Scholarship Competition" win and "Grand Prize Winners for Session II of the 2005 John Lennon Songwriting Contest" to meet Has won or placed in a major music competition? I don't personally see the John Lennon Songwriting/Scholarship competitions as "major music competitions", but this could be open to interpretation so I brought it here instead of PROD. One could also consider the Albino Blacksheep claim, but at least in my opinion, that falls short of WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An internal (supplier-retailer) promotion or incentive system lies to far beyond WP:CORP it's not even funny anymore. I very much doubt the article could be meaningfuly salvaged even if the promotion was notable at all (which it isn't). Coren 21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Mailer Diablo 16:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by user MirelaR, presumably the subject of the article. Speedy delete tage was removed once by author before anonymous user 128.122.190.238 applied {hangon} with no explanation (as of yet) on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. MirelaR then blanked the page. I've attempted to explain to the author that her article might violate WP:VAIN, and that she should move all the relevant information to her user page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A worthy cause, but not a WP:WEB candidate. Buh bye. Alba 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an advertisement for a used car lot. Charles 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a neologism developed "primarily online." Delete per WP:NOT --Hetar 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the entry removing any references to online speculation, and have cited a source which links to a heated discussion between so called 'chipmonkeys' and genuine musicians. I believe the article should remain as the it is the most plausable explanation of the term, and its deletion could mean less mature articles are posted in its place. 204080 22:51, 24 April 2006
It's as reliable as is possible to link to, as it is a term which has been coined by people during discussions, some online, some not. I still believe the term requires some form of explanation. 204080 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. The subject is a popular gravure model and User:Rankler's edit answers any questions of verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Miljoshi on 6 Apr, but prod was removed by 132.205.45.110 for no particularly good reason ("AfD it if you want to delete it"). Author proceeded to blank the page on the 14th, where it's stood since. This would have gone through as a prod if the anon hadn't de-prodded it (as they have done to a number of other articles), and it would probably have been a speedy G7 (author request) if various authors hadn't modified it since. As it stands, there's little choice but to AFD this. Per Miljoshi's prod, the article doesn't assert notability and doesn't cite references.
The result of the debate was merge to Ultima IX per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this one back on the 21st as a non-notable fan project, but 132.205.45.110 removed the prod on this one as well (see the AFD on Mao Kabayashi above), stating that "This should go to AfD not PROD". So it's here. It's still a non-notable fan project which doesn't appear to have publicly released anything yet - so let's delete it. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chlorthos Dragon 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent autobiography, non-notable, article claims "published works" but only google hits are from his personal web site and Wikipedia. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Accurizer 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blog. Alexa rank of 4,396,110. Delete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per WP:NOT. If the original authors would like the text of the article retrieved for them I would be happy to oblige per WP:BITE. --Cyde Weys 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic: "This page is designed to highlight the various memories students have from high school." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a publisher of original thought, a free webhost, or for things made up in school one day. Delete (or maybe userfy,) merging anything suitable into Memorial High School (Hedwig Village, Texas) -- AJR | Talk 22:19, 24 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 Speedy Delete, as repost, deleted several times. — xaosflux Talk 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball article that was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man 4) and has now been recreated. _-M o P-_ 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Sango123 (e) 22:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a page with a more complete list of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody episodes Jesussaves 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you get down to the bottom it turns out he's involved with a television program of some sort. This is still not sufficiently encyclopedic, and 99% of the information in the article is unverifiable (see the relevant policy). Chick Bowen 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep with a recommendation to merge to Mexican Revolution. Deletion is not really necessary and in general it's bad practise, while keeping the history ensures compliance with the site license. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be speedied, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I say we merge what is salvageable back into Mexican Revolution and delete this. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (Nom changed per Stifle)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOR entierly; google reports all of 1(!) hit, on Wikipedia itself. Coren 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn band M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]