The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
Racist & xenophobic userboxes are not legitimate here, especially when there are not humorous. The well-named "{User francehater}" should be deleted. Shame On You 22:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Delete. Green caterpillar 17:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is very close to a speedy. Grandmasterka 00:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by a user of the same name. No relevant google hits on this guy which shows him to be a relative of Roman Abramovich. Just vanity. Could be a candidate for speedy delete. Ageo020 00:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, doesn't meet criteria set at WP:SCHOOL. Some P. Erson 00:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new WP:SCHOOL proposal embodies the primary notability criterion, namely that the subject be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the subject or its owners/creators. This is the notability criterion that first appeared in limited form in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC at least two years ago and that has been generalized to published works in all forms. In its general form it appeared in WP:CORP, and the effect has been to shift the focus of discussion of company articles. Two years ago editors would be giving their personal opinions of how "famous" or "well-known" or "important" a company is, or centring the discussion around the author of the article. Now, as a direct consequence of WP:CORP, editors far more often go looking for books, news articles, magazine feature articles, reports, and the like (i.e. sources), and are basing their rationales upon the extents and natures of those sources. Finding, reading, and evaluating sources is the proper study of encyclopaedists. It seems like a good idea for the schools debate to shift away from the "stuck record" arguments towards looking at sources, too. If WP:CORP did it for companies, WP:SCHOOL should do it for schools.
Therefore I am applying the proposed WP:SCHOOL criteria, in particular the primary criterion, to this school. Looking for non-trivial published works, I find, in amongst all of the mere directory entries like this one and this one (which is content-free!), and a few works whose source is the school itself, a lengthy published report by an inspectorate independent of the school, and a followup report, both cited above. The first is definitely not a mere directory entry, and it appears likely from its length that the second is not, either. The primary criterion is thus satisfied. Keep.
Notice that the above rationale does not rely upon fame, importance, significance, personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, or blanket statements in either direction; but relies solely upon the primary notability criterion and looking at sources and what they contain. Uncle G 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - A7/A6 —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-17 05:45Z
A young actor whose only real credit seems to be a minor role in Batman Begins. The article seems to claim some sort of notability so I am not sure if this can be speedied. GabrielF 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lewis+philpott+blackout&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t500&x=wrt
The result was keep. --james(talk) 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable editor of a non notable newspaer Afghan Times. The newspapers article itself is on AFD. CLaims to have bought international media attention to Abdul Rahman (convert), though no proof is shown. Article started by a user Andaryas Ageo020 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy userfy —Mets501 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently flawed article: original research that is highly non-neutral point-of-view. I'll grant this can stay in the user space (minus the pictures), but it doesn't belong in the main article space, and I would say it most strongly needs deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The top keep vote provides the best reason for deletion; we are here to document things that are already notable and verifiable. If you find less notable webcomics on Wikipedia, please be bold and bring them to AfD. Grandmasterka 01:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable multilanguage webcomic, can be seen here in its english form (which is the primary site). The domain on which the comic is hosted attains an Alexa rank of 800,000 and their forums house 6 members. A google search for "three kingdoms comic" or for "三國漫畫" bring back no decent sources (professional reviews, commentary etc). - Hahnchen 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Grand Theft Auto fan fiction webcomic hosted on a free web host, here. No notability, no decent sources, no surprise. - Hahnchen 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of Wikipedia's many non notable webcomics, found here. There are no reliable sources quoted in the article, and searching through Google, I couldn't find any. The is no assertion of notability in the article other than the fact that it exists. Wikipedia isn't a web listing. Note that I can't get Alexa data right now, Alexa keeps on returning the rank of some random Russian site rather than the comic I'm after. Although with the comic finished, Alexa would not have been too useful anyway. - Hahnchen 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 01:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable radio station. "Radio Dynamic Youth Radio Project" brings up zero Google hits; "'Radio Dynamic' Portishead" brings up 8 unique hits. Prod tag removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A6. Naconkantari 01:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense Funky Monkey (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Less an article than an unverifiable story about a Nintendo fan site. Possibly speedy. GabrielF 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. How notable can a video that attributes 9/11 to the Illuminati be, anyway?
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO; No real notability claims, can't find the albums for sale, very few relevant Google hits (except to what apppears to be an Angelfire personal page). Prod tagged was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone wants to redirect it I wouldn't object. Grandmasterka 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a collection of external links and some "tips" on promoting websites. Generalmiaow 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article contributes nothing to wikipedia. I don't even think cleaning it up is viable, because its topic is easily covered by Link exchange, web directory and Link farm. At most, a redirect to one of these. Delete Generalmiaow 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 1ne 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badly specified list, which suffers from including everything that has some vage relation with eating or food. Hence, indiscriminate collection of information. -- Koffieyahoo 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a piece of swag that Microsoft gives out - not notable GabrielF 01:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (no consensus). 1ne 06:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discography is ridiculously small. My guess is that it is the contents of someone's private CD collection. Unless this page is going to expand to something close to a complete discography of Franck (which would be a mammoth undertaking) it should be deleted Grover cleveland 02:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checked at my public library and found 2 guides to classical recordings. They do not list hundreds of recommended recordings for Franck. In fact, Rough Guide only selected 5 of his works other than organ works, and had a few recordings of each. "A Basic Music Library" by the American Library Association only chose 3 of his works other than organ works, and listed 1 to 4 recordings of each. Obviously there is zero merit to listing a duplication of Schwan's catalog with every recording in print, then supplementing it with all out of print recordings. But there is a place for "Notable" or "Recommended" recordings. So rename the article to avoid the accusation that it does not include every recording ever done, and either include representative selections from such guides as are found in a library, or from a reputable online website. Please take a look at my additions, which include 1 or more recordings of each of the works recommended in either of the 2 guides found. Edison 23:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 1ne 06:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced and appears to be a hoax. John254 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of Middlesex not being a "well known" cricket team is remarkable as it is one of the most well known proffesional sides in the world!. They play there home games at Lords Cricket ground "The Home of Cricket" and have produced many, many england players and captains including the current one. Contemporaries of Carlo Rendell included Angus Fraser, Phil Tuffnell, Andrew Strauss, Mark Ramprakash, John Emburey, Ed Joyce, Owais Shah and Nick Compton. Comments about motivatioonal speaking are true but unverafiable so have been removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs)
However to add to this, I agree that he is only well known in certain fields.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardss (talk • contribs)
"Comment" It is fairly evident that many of the people passing judgement on Carlo Rendell’s notability have no understanding of cricket and the community that surrounds it. It is therefore impossible for them to comment on his notability within cricket circles with any authority. Perhaps they should keep there ill informed opinions to themselves or do some more research on cricket in England. I am a Middlesex member and am genuinely sickened that Middlesex County Cricket Club was called into question. I do hope these people look it up to see what a mistake they made. Carlo Rendell played for the club for the best part of three years and was a contracted professional, which I believe in its own write makes him notable! How the opinions of those in question would be swayed if it was a sport they actually had the patience or intellect to understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs)
unclear on what is not acceptable about them brian?
Delete as per the data currently available. The consensus that we had in WP:Cricket is that any first class cricketer is notable enough to have an article. But Rendell seems to be only a County Second XI player. Tintin (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a relief it is to have someone comment on this article that actually has an understanding of the game and can give acurate critisism. I refer back to previous comments and stongly urge "wikipedians" to only comment on things that they understand as some of the statments made previously are illinformed at best and could be percieved as down right ignorant by others. It seems utterly absurd for individuals from parts of the world that dont play cricket to make judgements on the game and its players. What do others feel? refering not so much in relation to this article but more generally in specific feilds of knowledge?
Your comments have left me somewhat chagrin. I understand your piont of veiw though, but still find the system a little frustrating. There are individuals associated with wikipedia who know alot about said subject(cricket)and they are very well placed to comment it may not be my place to ask but was offering a suggestion. Im sorry if i was not civil Brian and it was not a personal attack. I am worried that certain parts of wikipedia will be left in a detritus as a results. Once again i am sorry if you took offence to my remarks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs) .
Invidious position this man is clearly not as notable as mike ogburu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.143.240.33 (talk • contribs) .
The result was delete. 1ne 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how-to-program site. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Sango123 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a pyramid scheme. Over $700,000 paid to members & 100% free to join!
The result was keep. 1ne 06:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stub, almost looks like a hoax to me.TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (no consensus). 1ne 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert, possibly smerge into the disambig and move that to Cold Fire. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. 1ne 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A web application still in beta. How many users? Doesn't say. Innovation? Not stated. I see no evidence oa passing WP:SOFTWARE here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn nomination/keep. 1ne 02:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. :: Colin Keigher 03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 1ne 06:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, and also does not meet the proposed notability test for porn stars. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 1ne 06:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about somebody's Naruto fan character of some kind. Severe case of fancruft. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. 1ne 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:N; also based on WP:SONG. Prior to replacement of information from American Beauty (album), the page had little to offer in the way of WP:N. A user then moved information over from the main album article. I then created a redirect, and moved the vital information back to American Beauty. This redirect was contested. Also, a Google.com search of "Box of Rain" returns hits of mainly lyrics sites and no distinctive sources of analysis on the song or it's history (other than the Annotated "Box of Rain", which is already used as a reference). I am asking for a merge and redirect of the Box of Rain page. Since the relevant information was transfered, I am changing the request to just a delete, as per User:Will381796. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Moeron also redirected out several other Grateful Dead song articles at the same time, most of which actions were justified (they were the sort of pointless "X is a song on album Y" articles that didn't say much else). But Box of Rain's article has compelling material. The story of its creation illustrates that even at the height of the so-called hippie/counterculture era, family and generational considerations were still paramount. And how Lesh composed it with vocal nuances but not words is also interesting. And its concert performance history also illustrates how sometimes great material can be forgotten and then refound. I'm asking for some common sense here. Which article do you think people will get more out of reading, Box of Rain or Dick's Picks Volume 15? Wasted Time R 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
*Keep. This is a bad faith nomination. Anything the GratefulDead do is notable. It appears there is enough information for its own article, so there shouldnt be a merge, and I see AntiVandalBot even reverted the attempt to redirect it. SynergeticMaggot 04:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, A7 nn group. RasputinAXP 11:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN IRC cruft. :: Colin Keigher 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Per discussion, fails Web notability guidelines and verifiability with reliable sources.. Shell babelfish 05:28, 22 August 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)) . |
I could think of a million reasons to get rid of this page, but let's just start with non-notable (page hasn't been touched since March 2006), far from NPOV (quite popular?), original research (nearly all of their "references" are merely other F_W links) and downright inaccurate - which is what happens when fans write a vanity page. LoomisSimmons 05:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. 1ne 21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity ad page about an essentially non-notable band. The closest they come is a scheduled tour, but it hasn't happened yet and doesn't seem to be mentioned on their website. About 4000 Google hits, some to their myspace and related pages, contaminated by phrases that end in "...Wednesday". Opabinia regalis 05:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (no consensus). 1ne 06:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sollog is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. He is of no significance or importance. Documenting his alleged crimes in this article also violates the guidelines of WP:BLP, which indicate that such titillating details should be left out when they aren't important. Also this article has major problems with WP:Verifiability. It uses Usenet posts by third parties as primary sources of information. It also uses personal web pages and blogs as sources for claims. Sollog trolled for attention here and he shouldn't be rewarded for his trolling with an article about him. Vivaldi (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I (Vivaldi) added this for Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) who put up the AfD. Mr. Dufour is a new user and appeared to have some difficulty getting all the procedures worked out, namely he forgot to use the procedure for (2nd Nomination), which I corrected. Here is Mr. Dufour's reasoning (copied from AfD/Sollog):
I do not think this article, Sollog, belongs on Wikipedia. The person is not at all important, he made some kind of "psychic prediction" back in 2001 and has not done anything very notable since. Most of his "fame", as much as there is, seems to come from Internet postings from him or people who claim to be him or his "followers", there is no way to sort them out. There is also lots of discrediting personal information in the article which seems to be put there out of spite and has nothing to do with his alleged "notablity". I had never heard of him until someone mentioned his article as an example of the kind of unimportant person who can get a Wikipedia article. Thank you for considering this request. Steve Dufour 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Vivaldi. I seem to have messed up a couple of other topics when I tried to post my remarks here. I hope someone can fix that. I couldn't figure out how to.Steve Dufour 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. 1ne 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rap group. Article was previously nominated for deletion in March two weeks ago, and there was no consensus to delete, but come on: A Google search brings up only 545 hits, and their Allmusic listing is nothing but a directory listing that tells you where to get their album and nothing else. Their website has an Alexa ranking of 5,462,696. Delete. 1ne 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to Rock 'n' Roll High School. --CharlotteWebb 11:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable movie character. 1ne 05:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page for one concert out of... millions in recorded history. Not meritorious for own article. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, JJJJust, you might as well delete it, just like everything else I add on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachdreschman (talk • contribs) 06:08, August 17, 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. 1ne 06:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable, advertising, WP:AUTO. Less than 1000 ghits. Probably notable in their industry, but it is a small industry.--Brianyoumans 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a sentance like (o)ne of the most-innovative of the firms, it fails WP:NPOV. Article also fails WP:V, and so fails WP:OR in kind. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an advert. Seems like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article. sharpdust 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<3 LynzieBeBe — Possible single purpose account: Lynziebebe (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
And as for our "unique google hits" - you're basing that on the domain name stereokiller.com, which has only been active for a few years. Search in google for pahardcore.com and you will have much different results.
Your math/reasoning skills are not very good. It would *not* be an actual average of the two divided by the total of both. It would be much lower if the site used one domain name. Probably around 100,000. Because it's tracking both as seperate websites, it lowers the rankings of both instead of as one site.
Results 1-10 of about 67,100 for "pahardcore.com". (0.18 seconds) Cbrickhouse 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember when writing your term papers that it is poor work to cite an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is merely a tool that condenses and summarizes the knowledge, and shows readers where the actual reading material is. If there is no actual reading material about a web site, then there shouldn't be an encyclopaedia article on it. Uncle G 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was rebundled, then speedy deleted as R1 (dangling redirect). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect was for an article that was purposely here for spamming. sharpdust 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Only keep comment was based on writing songs for a band whose article was already deleted. - Bobet 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a public access TV show from a college volunteer station, selfmarketed by the creators. The article creator (a new user, probably not knowing procedure so don't hold it against him) removed my original "prod" tag, so I gather they want to contest the deletion. Seems pretty clear-cut, though. Dybryd 07:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Petros471 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fancruftish list and an indiscriminate collection of information. I have absolutely no problem with including an article on Uncyclopedia, but I fail to see the point in creating an article on site-specific memes. Are we going to do this for every single website in cyberspace? Wikipedia may not be paper, but we should take care to keep the signal-to-noise ratio somewhere beyond microscopic. What's next? List of common slang terms among sophomores at Peoira Southern H.S.? I can't see why anyone would want this article. If they wanted to know more about Uncyclopedia, they'd visit the website. Moreover, this page is just begging to become a vanity clearinghouse, and probably already is. StarryEyes 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --CharlotteWebb 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this article provided sources, I still don't see how it is notable enough to warrant inclusion. This fails WP:BIO and the PROF TEST as far as I'm concerned. RFerreira 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Mets501 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page acknowledges that the term was coined in testimony given in March 2006 as hyperbole or otherwise rhetorical use in reference to the position of Mullah. Consider the name; it does not fit with autocracy, democracy, theocracy in that it is clearly a neologism and the specifics describe the government of Iran rather than a generic discussion of a type of government (it is clearly a sub-type of theocracy if anything). While we do cover those once they become established, a use of the word in a hyperbolic context to describe Iran doesn't qualify as an encyclopedic topic. This certainly shouldn't be in the main politics side bar if it is covered. Jondeere 07:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it 'velayat-e faqi'. It's not perjorative and it refers to the exact same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.93.206 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Petros471 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. This article does not give adequate evidence of notability, and reads as a vanity entry. Google scholar produces only 1 entry, and Google only 47 unique hits JQ 08:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really "great" CS players are nothing but NN. :: Colin Keigher 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason as Aaron Myung. CS players are NN. :: Colin Keigher 08:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per a previous AFD, this is being deleted. Seeing that I was the one who found this article and AFD'd it the last time and that this is the exact same entry as before, I call for delete. With the last time stating delete, it makes sense to delete again. :: Colin Keigher 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient context, article is mostly opinion and unmeritorious. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable, looks like a description from a downloads site, rather than encyclopedic article. No third-party sources about subject provided. MaxSem 10:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Petros471 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement consisting of 95% marketese and unverifiable claims. Article started by employee. Fredrik Johansson 10:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fine. delete then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.212.70.122 (talk • contribs) .
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was scrutinized a short article which was possible advertising when it started. It has since been expanded, but still shows no evidence of passing WP:WEB, or why this is significantly more notable than the thousands of other hacked adult password sites out there; everything in the article appears to be based on observations of the site itself and not third-party review of it (so failing WP:V and/or WP:OR as well). ~Matticus TC 11:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to War crime. There wasn't a consensus to keep this article- the decision was between merge and delete. A lot of people said delete/merge, which is not possible. To preserve authorship history a merged article shouldn't be deleted. As some sections have already been merged a redirect is more appropriate. If this was a merger into one article a redirect to that article would be obvious, but in this case I'm redirecting to War crime, which contains links to the other articles per comment by Nihonjoe below. Petros471 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created with the sole attempt to try to attack Japan by comparing it unfavourably to Germany's post war attitude. Although it has been later changed, the article remains highly POV with no hope of later improvement. This is because it compares only Germany and Japan. It would be like creating an article comparing US and Swedish foreign policy. You could try to make it neutral, but because the choices were originally made to look the US look bad, the US will always be portrayed especially unfairly.
If the article had a general scope to look at how the Axis powers reacted to the war, or all the major powers on both sides, maybe it could work. But I don't think such an arbitrary comparison should be allowed to stay on wikipedia. No one is willing to put the effort in to change the slant, only minor edits. So hope of change would be vain. John Smith's 11:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if no one actually does write another article, it will show that they were never going to improve the current one, nor that it actually matters to them. John Smith's 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything below this line was said after the 5 day discussion period and thus not relevant to the final decision. From the above opinions, it appears there was a consensus for merger. If an admin would like to confirm that, I would appreciate it. John Smith's 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John Smith's: AFD discussions can last longer than 5 days, and there are many that do. Any and All comments made before an admin closes the disucssion are valid and considered in the final decision made by the closing admin. Additionally, removing other editor's comments is considered vandalism, so please do not do that again. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy userfication to User:Samsara/Frog/Stable. This is an example used by User:Samsara at Wikipedia talk:Stable versions and on several talk pages. Userfication appears to be the simplest solution all around without engendering further acrimony. Uncle G 13:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this WP:FORK is doing in the main namespace. Basically it shouldn't be in the main namespace (see Wikipedia:subpage#Disallowed uses), so should either be moved to the talk namespace or redirected as an illegal fork to Frog. I don't see why it's needed anyway, since you can copy the link to a particular revision if you like it and use that. — Dunc|☺ 11:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
}
The result was keep.--SB | T 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21 August 2006
The result was Keep. --CharlotteWebb 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is so uninformative, and seems to belong on Wikispecies instead of Wikipedia. Anthony 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 13:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced POV essay. It even has a conclusion at the end. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —freak(talk) 00:15, Aug. 23, 2006 (UTC)
Team in the "Brooklyn Kickball League". NN, obviously. NawlinWiki 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can i ask what NN means? 62.232.8.43
Thanks. Would an article on the league itself still be nn? Or perhaps a section referring to the league added to the Kickball entry?
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE; I could not find any coverage of this anywhere (indeed, Google turned up a remarkable 0 hits), and couldn't find much more about the developers except that they are an "independant company" (sic) advertising on the WoW forums. Crystallina 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR, WP:VAIN, WP:VERIFY... ccwaters 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR, WP:VAIN, WP:VERIFY... ccwaters 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Petros471 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains one single piece of information, the article is of poor standard, has numerous headings with no information attached and has been terribly written. Anthony 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fourteen-year-old who has started an online company and the webpage says that they're not even open for business yet. Vanity article, advertisement, NN. I am also nominating the article on his/her company, Astl Group -- Merope 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the most bizzare list I've ever seen a new user start on Wikipedia to say the least. Not all the songs support the Nazi Rudolf Hess, but I really can't see an overwhelming need for this list and it some of the more notable artist's songs can easily be merged back into the main article for Hess. Fails: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- Netsnipe (Talk) 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SOFTWARE as a non-notable freeware utility (although, granted, it could be useful to some). Crystallina 14:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merged to F-theory. Note that when one performs a merge like this, one can simply close the AFD, rather than wait for an admin to do so.--SB | T 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is:
It has been tagged as Totally Disputed; additional discussion is available at the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimur (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 August 2006
a::Perhaps valid counterpoints, WilyD - but in deference to the plethora of delete-votes below, allow me to respond. The new votes seem to articulate my original line of thinking, in accordance with Wikipedia AfD style. But, here's my own counter-counterpoints: 1) Myself and other editors have worked on rewriting to make it less poorly-written, but it's not made significant progress. 2) The term "fringe theory" may be better said as "not a theory, just a random rumination by a scientist that was later misinterpreted by someone as science." There is no formality in the theory, and thus no way to formalize the article. 3) Citations are hard to find because of point 2. I still vote delete, but thanks for your feedback. Nimur 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: relisted 18/08/06, which in your star-time is probably still the 17th. Slackers! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold and merged the content to the F-theory article. This seems to be the consensus after the re-writes took place. The new content was well-written and neutral. There is no further need to delete the article. Nimur 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable person, Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) Archer3 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable James68 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, claims are dubious, Stat arb has been around a lot longer than this guy has been a trader. Seems to be a vanity piece. James68 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as nn bio. Wickethewok 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity and non-notable article about a 13 year-old. AFDed a second time (see the noinclude section in this AFD)... Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, fresh site ranked 429,296 at Alexa. Delete per WP:WEB. --Haakon 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod by Kappa. This article very much appears to be original research. Absolutely no verifiable sources has been cited. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, this appears to be yet another rechargeable battery type. If this has some new technology or something, it might warrant discussion in article rechargeable battery, Nickel metal hydride battery or a related article, but I don't think specific battery sub-brand is notable enough for an article of its own, especially if it's a very new brand (how new it is, the article fails to tell). Also, the article is advertisatory in tone (to say the least) and doesn't provide too many sources. Prodded by me as "Yet Another Unremarkable Rechargeable Battery Model, advertisement"; ip 213.232.127.35 removed prod with comment "Unnecessary labeling of the article as a unremarkable battery advertisement. eneloop is the only battery on the market that can reverse the millions of batteries destroying the environment every year." and removed my ((advertisement)) while they were at it, too.--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --CharlotteWebb 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog% 2F2006_August_12&diff=70240900&oldid=70239900 A DRV consensus] overturned the previous deletion of this article. This is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Please consult DRV before commenting here. Although procedurally I will abstain, I'll mention that this US Senate candidate has received ample coverage on CNN of which I'm aware. Xoloz 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable company, 37 unique Google hits; article originally stated that "they are unknown and have not had any significant projects or releases to date"; I speedied the article based on that, and author removed the quoted language and the speedy tag. NawlinWiki 15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deprodded myspace band. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was to delete the article. -- Denelson83 23:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completing incomplete nomination. No need for this -- it's duplicative of the IMDB link in the main article on the film. It's inappropriate for a general reference encyclopedia to have complete cast lists, even for major films. NawlinWiki 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a lack of consensus. The article will be kept. -- Denelson83 23:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion by Evertype with the explanation: "The inclusion of the specific content here violates copyright. The page is already out of date (a maintenance problem), and the ISO 15924 article now links to the official code list on the Unicode website." I've removed the speedy tag and brought it here as this doesn't seem to fit the criteria for speedy deletion. No opinion from me – Gurch 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity-based Neologism. Cassavau 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unbelieveably NN alleged political party, in reality just a bunch of dudes. Almost could be speedied as a nn-group. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC) -----Addendum: As a reader of Russian, I read the website and the "coverage" and opine that it's most trivial - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft for a local radio show. Lack of 3rd party reliable sources. Google hits for ("Chio in the Morning" -wikipedia -myspace) = 499. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Old Ones (Warhammer 40,000). the wub "?!" 14:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has a blatantly wrong reference and the information provided is doubtfull. Any information of consequence is already in Old Ones (Warhammer 40,000) Thefuguestate 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted because of WP:NOR, oh and WP:RS as well. Whispering(talk/c) 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was to merge the article into Civilian casualties. -- Denelson83 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a definition. It also smells strongly of a POV fork Avi 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. It has an insufficient Google and Alexa ranking, and unlike YouTube, does not have many sources about it. Crystallina 16:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be vanity/neologism; may also fail WP:NOR. To be specific:
For these reasons, I am inclined to the view that this article should be deleted.
If the consensus ends up being that this should be kept, note that it is in serious need of cleanup; particular problems are the unencyclopedic writing style, the poor wikification, and the long, rambling "bibliography" section which contains texts that are mostly only tenuously connected to the claims of the article, and certainly do not appear to be about "bioteams" as such. — Haeleth Talk 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article about an Internet webshow that is going to air. Need I say more? Danny Lilithborne 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated under this AfD:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable advertising. unlikely to meet WP:CORP hard to see how it casn be verified independantly and self created so therefore falling foul of WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO Spartaz 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to correct capitalisation. Be bold in future and do this yourself if you doubt it will be contested :) --james(talk) 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate article of Edmund Pevensie. We should merge anything into Edmund Pevensie, then redirect to there. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:BIO. Computerjoe's talk 10:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not very notable go-karter. Page created by me using extraneous material which had been posted into [Peter Rees]. No vote, just listing for others to decide BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer merge discussion to the talk page of the article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this elementary school, a prod2 was added, the prod was removed so I bring this for this discussion. If elementary schools are now notable, then it should stay, in the meanwhile I shall stick with the policy of delete. --Richhoncho 18:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Petros471 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw this page it read "There was no such thing as a "GT-6" produced as the earlier entry indicated. For La Dawri information se http://ladawri.com." I checked with a GSearch and came to the same conclusion and duly prodded the article. However, the article has since been modified back to an earlier version. I shall remain neutral as I'm not versed in the minuatae of automobile manufacture. --Richhoncho 18:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as patent nonsense. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax; can't find any confirmation on Google. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can confirm that he really existed, but frankly I suspect somebody's just trying to have a bit of fun at the expense of people who don't know how to spell Guantanamera. Delete, or redirect to Guantanamera, if confirmation can't be provided. Bearcat 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable author. Only books I can find a trace of on the web are published by a vanity press. Originally tagged the article for prod, but the prod was removed (with no explanation) by an editor whose sole contributions are to this article. The Google search turns up 35 hits, 14 unique and pretty much all related either to the Wikipedia entry or to a website affiliated with lulu.com, the vanity press of the author. Pascal.Tesson 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for a website of questionable notability. Has been tagged with ((advert)) for 2 months, no significant work done to straighten it up. Suggest deleting as advertisement, WP:NOT a soapbox. Fails WP:V too (no citations for anything in the article). --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to George Felix Allen -- Samir धर्म 06:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Person is only notable due to an incident with Senator George Felix Allen. All content in this article was taken directly from the senator's article. Probably doesn't qualify as duplicate content but still shouldn't be out there. StuffOfInterest 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy KEEP, nominated too recently and WP:SNOW. -Doc 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
barely notable, inflammatory, exists just to push conspiracy theory cruft POV TheOnlyChoice 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Hordes of single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and reads as a vanity entry Stevenscollege 19:32, 17 August 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)) . |
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prod'd for a host of concerns and prod was removed without explanation: the page wasn't at all formatted well(was not addressed when prod was removed), the article cited no sources and was not very well verifiable on google(the sources have only been from company website so far), the article used the first person voice(not addressed), the article read like an advertisement(not addressed). And after all that it also appears to fail WP:CORP i kan reed 19:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Del. Blatant abuse of wikipedia: a solicitation for personal gain of user:Druid wicca, quoting: "They are available through eBay and PictureTrail.com under the user ID of druid_wicca." `'mikka (t) 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam, spam, spam. NN product. Prod removed by author. --Merope 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, keepers are unanimous. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this hits the trifecta of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NNOT.
I acknowledge that this was a mistaken nomination, and suggest a speedy keep Dybryd 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This band was brought to attention by an AfD of one of its members, Beth Hada; some research indicates that the band has no albums out at this point, there is no indication of a national tour, it is signed to a record label that got less than 20 Google hits and appears to not have a Web presence outside of references to this band - essentially, it does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable propaganda website, nominated for speedy deletion under an invalid speedy criterion so brought here. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion as CSD-A7 non-notable, but I wasn't sure so it comes here. Technical nomination - no opinion is being expressed by me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion with the words "fake tv show", which is not a speedy criterion. So it comes here on behalf of the nominator who should have done this her/his self. Technical nomination, no opinion from me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert that this browser-based game meets WP:WEB. --W.marsh 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Xoloz 16:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del. A name only once mentioned in Bible. No more than a single sentence is an article kinda Names mentioned in the Bible. BTW, is there an article of this sort? `'mikka (t) 21:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the page's long history, I see no evidence of notability. Page on es: redirects to something in the Wikipedia: namespace, which leads me to believe it has been deleted. Joke 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the stuff about the big bang is at best self-aggrandising nonsense. –Joke 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was do not delete. If someone wants to redirect/merge, go ahead (as long as consensus exists on article's talk), that doesn't need afd to decide. Petros471 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Maybe notable (or not), but it'd need a ground-up rewrite. Prod removed. Fireplace 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Petros471 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, only claim to notability seems to be that his daughter was on American Idol. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact that Rocky Gordon is a jazz musician that I have reviewed, and so has Jazz Times magazine to name a few. I support this artist 100%. Danny Desart —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs) .
KEEP!! In 2002 Hilary Sager reviewed the CD Perfect World in Jazz Times Magazine and although was not a fan of the production, she did say the following, "...Careful listening reveals Gordon's talent for crafting a melody, and devising understated memorable hooks." In addition, I did hear Gordon get airplay on KOAS 105.7 and KXPT 97.1 in Vegas a few years back. I would check the history of Jazz Time Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable wiki engine. The Google search for PerspectiveWiki (one word) turns up 5 unique hits. "Perspective wiki" does a bit better: 645 ghits with 196 unique. That still isn't much as most top pages are listings of wiki engines. Only mention I could find is a year old mention in an article of InternetWeek and refining the search by adding "engine" cuts it down to 65 unique hits, [24] none of which qualify as solid third-party coverage. The page has been tagged for months with every editing tag out there. And did I mention the page was created by a single-purpose account? Pascal.Tesson 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect. I am an administrator, and Martinp23 is correct. Deletion is not the final stage of article merger. Nominations of the form "I have merged the content into X and now want this article deleted." are erroneous. Remember: If you had wanted the content deleted, you would not have copied and pasted it into another article. Uncle G 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the limited content into Chesapeake, Virginia Chesapeake City Public Schools. Nothing notable enough to justify the retention of this article. Delete. BlueValour 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Hoax/Fiction (would be CSD candidate IMHO). Tawker 05:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fake bio. There is no Daniel Chesterfield. It is a fake persona created by a comedian for a viral video posted around the internet [25]. Beyond the fact that this whole article is complete nonsense, the video isn't very notable. IrishGuy talk 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made up info about Kelly Clarkson's next album. No sources listen and google search returns nothing, besides which there's no way track times or info would be known this far in advance.GrahameS 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam, probably copyvio. Petros471 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising/spam from a company that doesn't meet the notability criteria for corporations. Akradecki 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a series of books that have yet to be published. Article therefore fails as crystal ball gazing, not notable and pretty impossible to independantly verify. Suggest author recreate after publication if the books are successful. Also hints of vanity and advertising and possibly NPOV Spartaz 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted via prod, reposted. Spam. Petros471 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the bio of the CEO of the above-mentioned company. Has about 1,000 Google hits. The article appears to be factual, even the bits about dating Hollywood actresses, but the article boasts no sources, original research, a lack of notability, and possibly vanity. Note also one primary contributor, a User:Therabreathinfo, and mysterious disappearances of NPOV and vanity tags. StarryEyes 22:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus; default to keep. Petros471 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. Note: this list isn't about songs about romance, but songs about romance with a "nocturnal" theme. I suppose lists of songs about romance with List of songs about romance/mid-morning can't be far behind... StarryEyes 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Petros471 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (no consensus). 1ne 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hereby submitting for inclusion only a handful of the populace of Category:Dynamic lists of songs. If you wanted to nuke this whole category, I wouldn't shed a tear, but these are some of the worst offenders. Without fail, every list is original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. These are just the most indiscriminate of such lists. I'm nominating them separately so you all can judge for yourselves. StarryEyes 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one that got away from you, Starry, though this isn't in the same category you were trawling. Usual indiscriminate collection of information. And since the words "dance party" isn't in the titles of most of the albums, who's to judge what's included and what isn't?. Nominate and delete. Raggaga 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list is un-maintainable, imagine a list of DVDs. There are hundreds and hundreds of more umds movies to come.--Coasttocoast 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new low, even for trekcruft, doesn't come close to meeting WP:WEB— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hardworking fan series. Why in the blue hell should we delete something that we the fans are working hard on and want other fans to know about? We have on Wiki comic books and other things that worth while about reading about, but because this is a FAN series it's viable for deletion?
Kid, you're only 19, until you grow up a little, you'll be junior. I choose not to sign my replies, and WP:WEB standards could apply to anything. You could delete half of Wiki with those rules. Until someone gives my SUBSTANTIAL ruling against it. I'm gonna fight to keep it up.
Sorry junior, your arguement still holds no water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs)
I take offense to the "notable" comment made by Spyke. So I choose not to be respectful in that regard. Second, this isn't an advertisement. We aren't making money off of this, nor are we attempting to persude others to come visit or read the site.
If "advertisement" is a problem, then you're a hypocrit. Look at half the comic book references placed in here. All comic book related characters owned and operated by another company. Doesn't that constitute advertisement? If you want a wiki that is strictly facts, then enforce the rules 100%, don't pick and choose because "it doesn't suit you".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs)
Noteable in what way slick? Just because they're making money? Or have been on the news? And who are they noteable to? The fans or those who never pick up a comic book. You're using standards that are way to broad junior.