The result of the debate was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn group, less than 500 unique hits Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 00:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination because a user has disputed whether a consensus existed to turn this into a redirect the last time we got into the whole York Region thing. The user has not only violated 3RR over it, but has registered new sockpuppets to keep reverting even after being blocked. Thus I'm asking for a new consensus: is this a keep, a delete, or a merge into Vaughan municipal election, 2006? No vote from me since this is a procedural nom, but I will say that I'm really not too clear on how we can consider unelected municipal council candidates notable enough for WP inclusion, when the very same city's actual incumbent councillors haven't been able to pass the AFD bar. Bearcat 23:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am relisting this on today's AfD page as there is currently no consensus, which does not help resolve the issue. No vote. Thryduulf 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web forum Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should we also delete Google for being an advertisment for a website? Ztsmart199.201.168.100 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What criteria are required for an article about a website?
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:VSCA. Alexa rank is 35,851. Royboycrashfan 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable internet pipe dream, no third party sources other than self-produced press releases 71.212.87.103 02:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listing orphaned AfD by 71.212.87.103. No vote. Mithent 02:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete' ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable neologism. Probably made up. DJ Clayworth 01:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The company seems to have a degree of notability, with a few hits on google. But this reads like an advertisement, and was in fact written by the company owner's wife: Lizlash (talk · contribs). --BillC 01:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anon editor who added this AfD has told me that he/she is unable to complete the process by clicking on the redlink, since this counts as creating a new page, from which anons are barred. So, if possible, I'll take over the reins of this one, and say delete as dictdef per WP:NOT. --BillC 02:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem very notable. JW1805 (Talk) 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although he is a wikipedian, his wikipedia activities alone do not make him notable. Bige1977 02:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. Redirects are cheap. :) Mailer Diablo 02:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yaxley is a minor character in Harry Potter. He already has his own subsection at Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter#Yaxley. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable D-list Elmer Gantry wannabe. No actual accomplishments. Believe me, I checked this guy, fixed up the biased and poor language, formatted and wikified, researched publisher info on his vanity-press "publications", tried (and failed) to find citations backing up any claim to any level of notability (besides his website). I'm especially pissed because after all that, I decided not to AfD the article despite his clear non-notability, because, enh, too lazy. Response? Reverts with insulting edit summary, addition of more mendacious and biased material, refusal of editor to respond to polite requests to engage. Giving him a pass on his non-notability a mistake, I guess, so deletey-time. "Lou Engle is an influential leader" is just plain false. He's a nobody. More info on article talk page. Herostratus 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a made-up term with no sources of evidence that the term is used, let alone worthy of an encyclopaedia article. All google hits seem to be 'silly use', and not that described in the article. Stringops 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted as nonsense. — TheKMantalk 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Delete AlistairMcMillan 03:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 11:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic. GfloresTalk 03:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable bandcruft. If it is decided to keep it, this article and timebox should at least reference each other, or perhaps a dab page created for them -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Makemi 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material -Andrew120 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement masquerading as an article. Some guy 03:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this notable? You be the judge. Gets lots of Google hits.(Has redirects too) DJ Clayworth 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)
April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was banished to the Phantom Zone. DS 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Article states that this is only mentioned once in a comic with no specifics. Some guy 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article for deletion because I fail to see how the subject in question is notable. When using Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a guide, this individual does not hold office, and doesn't seem to get that much press.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merged with Sun Certified Professional. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badly named title, no content, if notable at all belongs under a Sun article, but there's nothing left to merge. NTK 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Video game in development by a couple of guys for some contest. They don't even have a publisher. And, icing on the cake, zero google hits. Extreme delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could find no evidence this is a real art technique. Googled 'dakkie contrast', 22 hits, "dakkie" itself yields some 22K hits, but most seem to refer to a proper name. "dakkie cinematography" (with no quotes) yielded 5 hits. Finally, the page does not link anywhere.-- Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
local slang, not in widespread use. Zero google hits. Montco 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Galesburg shower
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can find no evidence of notability. Zero hits for "A Yamaguchi Ghost Story", "Concrete Canvas" Static got 123, but none seem to be related to anime. "Shishido Takamitsu", the work's creator, yielded one hit.-- Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is almost entirely original research, and when viewed against the other articles in Category:Military comparison has no stylistic or content similarities. This is the type of article that should be read in air combat magazines or written by pundits, not the type that belongs in an encyclopedia. ericg ✈ 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This binge-drinking article failed speedy because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day is not a criterion. Failed ((prod)). Now at AFD, trifecta complete. Delete. stillnotelf is invisible 05:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence or claim of notability. Alai 06:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, appears to be WP:POINT. Stifle (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
because a German English Administrator is unable to verify the content from Germany (since no Cherokee Live in Germany) and has placed a prod on the page, which means it probably doesn't belong in the Encyclopedia Asgaya Gigagei 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently a vanity article (at least it's an up-front one), no evidence of any actual notability. Alai 06:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Deleted by Ricky81682. (aeropagitica) 12:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at first glance I thought it was nonsense. I think its an advertisement though... maybe...? Wickethewok 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as recreated content. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planehugger for the last decision. Rossami (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedily deleted twice, and was then reposted yet again. I've changed the re-nomination to a AfD because I think that it's worth discussing. I do not know what the original reasons given for the speedy nomination were, but my guess is that it's because it's a neologism. Icarus 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definition only. Most likely crude protologism. Wickethewok 07:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete (creator request). – Sceptre (Talk) 14:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of weird nominating my own page for deletion. This was the second article I wrote and at the time I was new and not familiar with all the policies. Looking back at it now, it seems to be mostly fancruft. I'm obviously biased, as I wrote it, so I'll let others decide. Some guy 07:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Article was Speedy Deleted by User:Elf-friend at 22:28, 3 April 2006. Reason given was "This article provides no meaningful content". I'm just closing off this discussion. -- Saberwyn 11:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like there should be something explicitly saying on WP:NOT that WP is not UrbanDictionary 2. Wickethewok 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete - If 'donkey punch' and 'glass bottom boat' are allowed in the hall of wikipedia i see no reason why The aladdin should not be allowed. It is a common term which is used collqially in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.97.183 (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT to La casa de Bernarda alba. JIP | Talk 08:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - looks like a playbill from some production of a play.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 11:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a newspaper article or something. Not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content looks like a church brochure promoting the pastor rather than a neutral article. But more importantly, I don't think the biography of the pastor Kevin Loo warrants an article on its own in wikipedia, as currently there is no significant or important detail about the pastor. He is at the moment a senior pastor of a local church in Malaysia, like many other senior pastors around the country. Atticuslai 08:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merged with Sava (mythology). (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Renamed as Hāhau-whenua (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Renamed as Auahitūroa. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Renamed as Pulotu. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. There's not much to keep but feel free to create a page saying eau is French for water! kingboyk 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally...This is the last of the 54 Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Loo --Alan Au 08:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, ranking of "great film stars" not based on any published ranking, merely on reasoning set up by editor. Ckessler 08:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unstable neologism. Haakon 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merged into List of minor characters in Saved by the Bell. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character. Ckessler 09:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is being used as a promotional tool for a charity. Outwith Lancashire and Yorkshire there is zero "tradition" (a much abused word) of county flowers in any other part of the UK, and there never can be in Scotland, because the counties which could have adopted them were abolished over 30 years ago. Mais oui! 09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last time this article was nominated for AfD here, we've forked out the malls that are verifiably defunct, and no longer operating as malls or closed outright here. This addressed the concerns brought up in the previous AfD nomination. This article now contains only "distressed" shopping malls still open to the public, which is far harder, if not impossible, to objectively verify than defunctness. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one is interesting. The article, as it now stands, is comple vanispamicruftisement. Google reveals 360 hits for "Stan Johnson" and "Prophecy Club". I'm really not sure if the host of a 15-minute show is notable. (I co-host a 15 minute show on KUOM, although that's local, and this appears to be national.) No vote. Grandmasterka 10:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this term is in terribly widespread use, nor how it could grow beyond a dictionary-style definition. Joyous | Talk 11:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was lies, lies, and more lies. DS 19:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BS - not a 'billionaire' and NN. James Kendall [talk] 11:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Everyone loves Magical Trevor, cos' the tricks that he does are ever so clever. Speedy deleted. Esteffect 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Wiktionary: Wikt:jaded Dangherous 11:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (3 or 4 to 1, plus a notable game does not per se make the software house notable). kingboyk 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN games company. For a company that has supposedly been around since 2001, they only get 342 hits. Drat (Talk) 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
subject is non-notable 999 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any evidence of notability. Google search doesn't come up with anything. Was prodded but tag removed by article's author. Spondoolicks 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO, garners a 40 upon googling. Previously ((prod))ed, removed by User:204.39.88.246. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (11th nomination)
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page for non-notable band. No entry in AMG. —Chowbok 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable. This person appears to be locally known, but certainly not notable enough. Jogloran 14:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by me. Pepsidrinka 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely NN? Seems like a regular guy to me, and definitely not a topic of encyclopaedic value. James Kendall [talk] 14:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who the fuck are you to decide what is of encyclopedic value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gaius Baltar (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual/incident. — WCityMike (T | C) 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you want to just propose that all the articles I've started be deleted I can provide you a list. I think Zamos is notable. It takes a lot of guts to do that. Google returns 10K hits for "David Zamos"; story was picked up by dozens of major outlets in several countries. Mateo LeFou 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect to Rodrigo y Gabriela. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My own fault. Article already exists at Rodrigo y Gabriela. But the existing article doesn't show up when searching for 'Rodrigo Y Gabriela' so I started up this one. They're quite similar articles anyway. Modular. (Talk.) 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniting Friends in America
The result of the debate was delete. DS 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite good attempt at creating article, clearly fails WP:BAND. Trivia section is going to BJAODN; rest is going nowhere. Daniel Case 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some websites you don't need to look up their Alexa rating to know they fail WP:WEB. You just don't. Daniel Case 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 09:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game mod. Prod removed by same user who removed prods from other gamecruft game mods currently on AFD. Quale 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy: Vanispamcruftisement, CSD A7 . – Sceptre (Talk) 15:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page of non-notable band, added by user who is only using Wikipedia to promote his own obscure projects. —Chowbok 16:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - plenty of google hits, but reeks of vanity. Big in albania 11:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, otherwise nothing else that couldn't be merged into new urbanism or its related articles. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(({text))} (Nominated for deletion by 141.161.112.132)
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unnecessary redirect page (grand lodge of canada suffices) —This unsigned comment was added by Osgoodelawyer (talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was move to wikt is the obvious choice, but it already has a def there. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still a dicdef. It is already in wiktionary. There's no need for a tiny stub saying exactly the same thing in wikipedia. Stringops 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed...though it was nice while it lasted :)Tom 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some faint claim of notability (published photographer), but no sources other than personal web sites. Strong suspicion of self-promotion. Alai 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirected to Wayne Dyer. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was a spelling error for an entry on Wayne Dyer. A Wayne Dyer page already exists and the content was merged. Sandwich Eater 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded and then de-prodded by User: Monicasdude. This documentary has no IMDb entry, leading me to doubt its notability and verifiability. Delete --Hetar 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus; leaning to keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax/vanity/non-notable etc, but claims notability. No Google hits.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Idler is an amateur body-builder who has won over 70 competitions. He also has won Two-National Championships for Tiddlywinks. He deserves as much recognition as anyone else on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:MoHills (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? Modular. (Talk.) 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
School's webite: [27]
Website with #1 ranking: [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroll (talk • contribs)
alrite, its more of a encyclopedia post now no?
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly unencyclopedic nonnotable gamer cruft. A list of secrets and how to find them in Halo2. Wikipedia isn't some GameFAQs rubbish. About as notable as List of secret exits in Super Mario World, or List of GMan sightings in Half-Life. - Hahnchen 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is aimed at Hahnchen for his rude, vulgar description of something that needs nothing more than what Gwernol wrote. I'm interested; why did you search for this page if you didn't want the information held within it? Do you randomly search pages to delete? Do you not have something more constructive to do? Such as write an article? Or donate to charity? Do you know how long it took me to write what is there? Sure; delete it if it's unencyclopædic (you spelt it wrong by the way), but after reading how you assert yourself I can't help thinking how little (if any) value to mankind you'll be. I don't want to be a part of something designed to share knowledge if it causes those who think they know best to adopt a discourteous derogatory façade simply because they don't approve. This page is publicly viewable so I can't show as much impoliteness as I would like. Good day to you Sir Специајіист горизонтајіьній создатејіь 01:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete Proto||type 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable venue. Only 24 Ghits for "Haterhouse" (and 117 for "Hater House") discospinster 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User "Discopinster" is clearly not the sole objective force in deciding whether or not this venue is "notable." This venue has meant a great deal to very many people in michigan, and the subjective nature of a claim such as the one made should be reviewed. The entry "Haterhouse" has recently been edited, sources cross referenced and many internal links added (all of which obviously qualify to have their own wikipedia entries.) reconsider this, please.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 10:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is equal parts POV and complete rubbish. It previously survived an AfD, the result of which was No Consensus. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous users have expressed their concerns about the notability of this person, as evident in the edit history. Apart from having been a TV production assistant, he does not seem to be notable in any way (says Google). The assertions in the article are rather vague and unsourced; he probably also doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN. Not gonna get into the mess that led to this AFD, but nobody wants this deleted now, so kept it shall be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. The only notability criteria provided is that the subject is sister of someone and daughter of someone. --Ragib 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus; 3:2 to keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable?
The result of the debate was consensus goes to merge, but all four band members have pages, and I'd hate to discriminate. – Sceptre (Talk) 14:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this was a nnbio at some point, it's been vandalized dozen of times, and I can't make sense of it now. I still believe it's a nnbio, but I'd like to have feedback-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as bad faith nomination by unsigned user. Capitalistroadster 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It encourages other's to copy this prank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunger (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is at best a list and ought to be moved from its ridiculous namespace. However, since there is no criteria for inclusion, other than being "revolutionary minded", it's hard for me to see how this could be transformed into an article of encyclopedic value. There's no context, and no solid or useful criteria for inclusion or expansion. —thames 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I own corrientelatina and its not an ad. all that is facts. Alexa doesnt mean anything. their ranking are based on people that have the alexa toolbar and is easily cheated. we are reputable and hate the fact that you guys don't do any research. Alexa? lol. give me a break. you can email me directly instead of saying "eff ads" sitting behind your computers not doing any research. check our facebook (blue check verfied) check out spotify (verified) come on. do some research before you call me spam! rich[at]corrientelatina.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.65.2.119 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I own corrientelatina and its not an ad. all that is facts. Alexa doesnt mean anything. their ranking are based on people that have the alexa toolbar and is easily cheated. we are reputable and hate the fact that you guys don't do any research. Alexa? lol. give me a break. you can email me directly instead of saying "eff ads" sitting behind your computers not doing any research. check our facebook (blue check verfied) check out spotify (verified) come on. do some research before you call me spam! rich[at]corrientelatina.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.65.2.119 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. Doesn't seem notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and thus what the site "will become" doesn't interest us.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable, person's name and none of the listed films google. Accurizer 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, CSD A7
One use neologism for 3 members of a highschool team. Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 21:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability except being granddaughter of someone famous. This alone doesn't deserve an article. Grue 21:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability except for being granddaughter of someone famous. That alone doesn't deserve an article. Grue 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of nonsense (is this some Mary Sue fanfic?), and a little bit of duplicated content from Yu-Gi-Oh! and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. kelvSYC 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect/Withdrawl --lightdarkness (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystalballism, per WP:NOT. I added a PROD tag, but creator then placed ((vfd)) on the page. I've fixed the tag, and brought it here. lightdarkness (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, most probably a vanity page. Chairman S. Talk 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original article was a neologistic acronym for Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton, and Stanford universities. HYMPS + Yale gets 3 Google hits (though a different permutation of the letters, HYPSM + Yale, at least gets 375). After a failed prod, the article was rewritten about a group of primates and appears to be a complete hoax; their discoverer, "Richard Kopolovski", for example, gets zero hits. Delete. ×Meegs 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement, non-notable company. SCHZMO ✍ 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Dragon Ball Z episode. However, none of the Dragon Ball Z episodes have their own pages - they are all summarised on their Saga page, Majin Buu Saga in this case. Hence Delete. -- Mithent 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep - nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless DAB. Only one real article with this term. Precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Early Warning (disambiguation) — P199 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty■ 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was written by the person it's about(he even signed it at the bottom), and he doesn't seem to be notable. Foxmulder 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, while I was putting it on the AfD page someone has done a lot of wikifying (it was on the "wikify" project page), but if you go back to the original version it's obvious that it was written by the person it's about. Foxmulder 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirected to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. One does not need a separate artricle for American propaganda buzzword. There already is Iraq War. Mukadderat 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A goalkeeper for Internazionale Milano F.C.'s youth squad who has never played a first team match. Absolutely non-notable, IMHO. See also players' notability. Angelo 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]