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]
This page keeps getting deleted without discussion. I am at the mercy of people with more Wikipedia experience.ChristinaDunigan 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New article
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]
A tag has been placed on Mark Crutcher, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Mark Crutcher is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Mark Crutcher. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template ((hangon))
to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. — ERcheck (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that it got deleted despite the hangon tag. Would anybody care to explain how this doe not constitute censorship?ChristinaDunigan 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was marked for deletion and deleted within hours despite the hangon tag, and the Life Dynamics article didn't even get the formality of the quick delete notice. There was no discussion, just nuking. ChristinaDunigan 15:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag ("Cook is no longer with WDAF; he's now working in a position "off camera" with the Kansas City Royals. The article is also very sparse.") removed as not being a CSD. Prod has been tried before but contested, so listing here. No opinion from me. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was move to Incubus discography and merge content from Incubus (band)#Discography. Canderson7 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced and comprised entirely of an list with no explanatory content, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. John254 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of words having different meanings in British and American English -- Samir धर्म 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, it is mostly a duplicate of List of words having different meanings in British and American English, but is receiving divergent edits. The point of it, AIUI, was to bring together all word usage differences between British English and American English. However, there are a number of problems:
As such, I feel that we should get rid of this and save the work for the three specialised articles I have mentioned. In the long run, it would be a nightmare to try maintaining this as well. -- Smjg 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've looked through the article's changes since creation, and merged into List of words having different meanings in British and American English the one or two changes that I feel need merging in. -- Smjg 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States Green Party. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been essentially a stub for four years. The information exists at United States Green Party. Andrew Levine 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nonrelevant topic, article has empty content--Jestix 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete the article. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software product. Peyna 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "Integration management" turns up businesses and certain business projects titled "Integration management," but not the subject this article purports. As of right now this article does not explain anything, cite references, or demonstrate noteworthiness. Nickieee 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The references brought up by KillerChihuahua sway the argument toward WP:V being met. -- Samir धर्म 06:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is notable. --Neutralitytalk 23:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable podcast. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 23:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn model Burgwerworldz 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN company -- promotional information only User:Kebnabi 23:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
self promotion and non-notable Graveenib 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
self promotion maybe, but covers some important information regarding aims of the festival for users searching for more details. --82.2.119.90 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect, as a quite plausible search term, and as per original nomination: "this page should just be a redirect to that one". That doesn't require an AFD tag. --CharlotteWebb 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It just isn't notable at all. There's already a page on Gay parenting, which itself could use a major overhaul. This page should just be a redirect to that one.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus -- Samir धर्म 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion, but has enough going for it that I listed it here instead (mostly because I noticed I had done some formatting on it before, and since I hadn't tagged it then, I figured there had to be a reason). Gets 2 hits on google news, 25000 on google, has an amg entry, the album's listed on amazon with some reviews. - Bobet 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) -- Samir धर्म 06:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Referred from the speedy deletion queue. Possibly a notable topic in video gaming. I'm not an expert. theProject 21:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I clearly understand molydeus or any other fictional creature is not a high subject, but since I've found page about other D&D creatures (and I've just bought the Fiendish Codex 1 :)) I thought that, for a completeness principle, it could be a good idea adding the missing creatures. Moreover I see no reason to delete this page while other pages about d&d demons, like Balor (Dungeons & Dragons), Marilith (Dungeons & Dragons) or Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons), only to cite a few, remains, in my opinion rightly, on the Wikipedia.
I hope to persuade you! :) Bye! --Eldar Featel 12:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't site it's sources. I cannot find any actual reference to this meaning in reality. I believe it to be a neologism. Carlif 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied once, and reposted. I see nothing notable about this academic, I'm afraid. Doesn't everybody publish or perish? theProject 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable web forum, no claim of notability is made. RWR8189 22:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplette AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion from me. -Royalguard11Talk 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to merge with the Porsche 911 pages, thank you. However, a proper entry on the Covin kit car would be fine. Why not leave this page up and ask for it to be improved? There is a small core of Covin enthusiasts who, I'm sure, could add some better info.
Surely it's wrong to delete an entry just because it's not very good. Philsy 08:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion from me. -Royalguard11Talk 22:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion from me. -Royalguard11Talk 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion. -Royalguard11Talk 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect and merge to Jay Mariotti
Was nominated for speedy deletion as a non-notable website. This isn't a criterion for speedy deletion and nominating articles using that as a criterion doesn't make it one (subtle hint: stop nominating, or change the criterion; stop making the life of deleting admins hard). So, here we are: slow delete for being a non-notable blog-cum-website. ➨ ЯEDVERS 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the reason behind nominating my August 11 entry for speedy deletion, one or more people have objected to the entry on the grounds that the subject of the entry, the Jay the Joke website, is a “non-notable” website.
In response, please note that as of the present moment, the Wikipedia encyclopedia now boasts a total of 1,316,282 articles in English (i.e., Monday, August 14, at 15:50 GMT).
Note moreover Wikipedia’s fundamental open-source commitment—a “free encyclopedia,” which “anyone can edit.”
In order for someone to raise a reasonable and fair objection to my proposed addition to Wikipedia’s 1,316,282 articles, I am afraid that the subject’s lack of noteworthiness in another person’s eyes is simply not sufficient. After all, facts are one thing. But who is to have the power to determine noteworthiness?
Instead, in all fairness, and in the spirit of Wikipedia’s core commitment, for an objection to lead to deletion, the objector would have to show that the substance of the proposed entry is false—and not only false merely, but false in some non-trivial sense.
Therefore, unless the person or persons who raised the “non-notable” objection can meet these last conditions, there clearly is no good reason to prevent my proposed entry from becoming a part of this encyclopedia’s growing family of entries.
Thanks. David Peterson 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Chicago)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete AFD, found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:Paolo Liberatore. No opinion. -Royalguard11Talk 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep especially in the context references put forth by User:TruthbringerToronto -- Samir धर्म 06:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article prodded as failing WP:MUSIC, deprodded with claim that it now meets wp:band. I disagree. Nothing links and there is not one indication that it meets the criteria. Ghits are 887. Article also does not meet requirments of WP:RS. Delete. SynergeticMaggot 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ingenue actress, barely two weeks into her first role. Article was prodded and deleted previously. Recreated, so discussing deletion here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rapper, appears to fail WP:MUSIC; probably a hoax. Google shows 9 hits for "Shawn Wells" Wordsworth, 3 hits for "Shawn Wells" "Masta Ace" (none of the hits in the second case link to a page with both names together), and 0 hits for "Shawn Wells" "Fantastic 4" (the article said he acted in that movie). Unlike the usual article that fails WP:MUSIC, this one goes one step further and omits even a MySpace link, making it absolutely unverifiable. Kimchi.sg 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as a subpage of Tachyon. I have not merged due to the argument that it seems to work better as a subpage -- Samir धर्म 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article violates WP:NOR and WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 00:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*delete per nom. ~ c. tales \\tk// 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN promotion Clappingsimon talk 00:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. The article is uncited; the talk page also mentions "the term is not in widespread use". Kimchi.sg 00:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another generic blogtool. Despite its alleged popularity, it has no Alexa ranking. Fails WP:WEB. Crystallina 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has just come out of beta.
The result was speedy delete CSD G7. I notice the author was careful to remove only the main text of the article in the blanking, which probably means he really wants it gone. Kimchi.sg 09:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails, WP:BIO. No assertion of notability beyond designing a ceiling fan for Eliington. 35 G-hits. Deprodded by creator. Reads like a personal vanity web page, blog or advertisement and is a link farm. Not encyclopedia under WP:NOT. :) Dlohcierekim 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I have tagged for neutrality per discussion on talk page -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the article is very POV and I don't consider it an argument for an encyclopedia (it's not an important fact); see more explanations in the talk page piero tasso 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Khatru2 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hoax or OR - I've never heard of this or its allegedly notable author, and Google produces nothing except mirrors JQ 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Spider-Man villains - Bobet 09:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about character who does not have a name and only appears in one context. Article should be deleted; merging would be redundant as this idea is central to the origin of Spider-Man Chris Griswold 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A1 - no context. Kimchi.sg 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be total nonsense and in any case is unverified Blood red sandman 01:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unmaintainable list which violates WP:NOT. Jesus is a bit of a recurring theme. You might as well have a List of songs about love. Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary duplication of the much further expanded Master's degree article. Please see related AFD discussions: Professional Bachelor's degree and Professional doctorate. As with both of these articles, there is little or nothing in this article to merge to Master's degree that isn't already covered there. — NMChico24 01:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Bobet 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is wikispam -- a lot of the text is verbatim from the text at [www.trikke.com]. At the very least, this article requires a substantial rewrite; while I can see how the topic might merit an article, as it stands, it's just an ad. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No claims of notability have been provided in the page. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. It was tagged for speedy deletion (although that was invalid), and nominated, and deleted, via prod; some days later, the original author came back and contested the prod by recreating the page, so, I'm taking it to AfD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Betacommand 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about future convention. Not notable. 1000 g-hits. Reads like an advertisement. :) Dlohcierekim
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? This is in no way, shape or form an encyclopedia article. I can't even begin to say just what it is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Subwayguy 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
advertising for nonnotable business NawlinWiki 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no discussion about the mall's notability. It's just a run of the mill mall. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (A1 & A7) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn Companies, Spam? Ilyong 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His present position is an appointment and he has not been elected to a state-wide body. Plainly a meritorius individual but has not achieved enough, yet, to gain notability. Delete. BlueValour 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable slang Dsreyn 03:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. BlueValour 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another article submitted as an obit. A worthwhile career with a number of achievements but none sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 03:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Socks/meats and SPAs aside, vanity press publications are not reliable sources, nor are nonexistant or one-line entries in magazines. RasputinAXP 01:59, 27 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)) . |
Nomination also includes near duplicate HOT ROD SURF.
Started as potential vanity page. Very little asserted notability and none established. Was prodded and supported by another editor but contested and removed. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm going to assume good faith" — This is not a question of assuming good faith. This is a question of an application of our verifiability policy that is so lax that it includes books that haven't been published.
"Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that?" — Once again: This book has not been published. It is not a published source. Uncle G 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yeah, I know... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable slang entry Dsreyn 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Marc Morrone, no reason not to mention it there. - Bobet 10:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More a trailer than an encyclopaedic article on a notable programme. Delete. BlueValour 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of subject's notability. Kimchi.sg 08:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
stated purpose of the article is to be a profile of a business for purposes of his clients, also the page has been deleted once and recreated Bookgrrl 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides insufficient context. The majority of the information in this article has not been verified and is not reliable. No sources have been cited to the article which leads to suspicion of being Original Research. -- 3:16 03:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn game. The website has no alexa rank or information at all. There are zero google hits for "Subpoena Power, Save the Republic" and only 28 hits for 'Subpoena Power" "Save the Republic" game'. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, it was templatefied by Reinoutr and is probably better served in that fashion. The article's text concentrated on the individual players, not the family itself. The history isn't necessary to keep since the only thing in the template is a family tree branch. - Bobet 10:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information is certainly noteworthy, but not in its own article. It's also rather improper (IMO) to title an article something as general as "Allen family" and be so specific, since there are clearly more Allen families than just the one that the article refers to. fuzzy510 03:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Wile E. Heresiarch. BryanG(talk) 05:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Author's only contrib. Author disputes claim that this is an advertisement, but even if it isn't, it's a neologism, it's not notable, it's not encyclopedic, it's largely original research and not verifiable, and it's also not neutral POV. Are these divas really invited to "everything, everywhere, all of the time?" How much money is "too much" to spend on shoes and clothes, and what constitutes a "fabulous" night out? Delete with extreme prejudice. VoiceOfReason 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's cute joke AFAICT. Doesn't even cut it as a dicdef (I was hoping this would be a band, as it would be a cool name). Probable BJAODN. Daniel Case 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, therefore kept. - Bobet 10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for this "article to even exist". The information should be part of the article about The Amazing Race and not an out of context list. I placed the information from this list in the main article where it belongs. This article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Displaced Brit 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep per A1. SynergeticMaggot 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another list article that has no reason to exist. The information should be part of the article about MyNetworkTV and not an out of context list. The information from this list belongs in the main MyNetworkTV article and the indivdual television stations belong article in a category. This article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Displaced Brit 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another blloody list related to American telvision! This one lists guests on Martha (TV series) and most likely should be merged in with the meagre article about the programme. As with the majority of these lists, it violates both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Displaced Brit 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline computercruft, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info, self-reference starts article. This is actually the second article I've nominated that starts with a self-reference: the other is Politics of Wallonia, and that has since been expanded. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article's subject is a non notable comic artist who miserably fails the google test.Delete. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Kisai 08:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
630 Google hits, most of which are forum derived or from wikipedia mirrors. From the website of the "movement": In early 2001, fed up with the decadent political system, two young American college students decided that a change was imperative to raise public consciousness in support of ideals for a greater America. To wit: WP:NFT & nn. Eusebeus 04:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Panathinaikos, I don't see anything useful to merge. If someone disagrees, the history is still there. - Bobet 10:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok to delete since no notability or sources Anlace 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable porn star with only about 41 films to her credit. Fails to meet WP:PORN BIO. I doubt that large breasts are notable enough. will381796 05:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep
The article sounds like an ad for a website, and even assuming that all the claims in the article are true, it does not assert notability close to the level of WP:WEB, in my opinion. Wmahan. 05:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136 citations in Google Scholar [23] and indexed by Google News. Capitalistroadster 07:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim of notability is an appearance in one porn film. Appears to exist pretty much just to advertise website. Only two sites link to her website. -Elmer Clark 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would PROD this, but this is a really bizarre situation. User:Jonotoes initially created this article at Kristina Paulsen ([24]), and it was about an entirely different person. He then slowly edited it and moved it, and now it is a geneological entry about someone completely different. Kristina Paulsen looked as if she may have been notable, but Christian certainly is not. I would just revert it back to Kristina, except the same user who created it altered and moved it. This is really confusing. Either way though, I think this ought to be deleted per WP:NN -Elmer Clark 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all, after discounting single purpose-accounts. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Non-notable independent film company. Google search for ("MTD Studios" -wikipedia) returns 512 hits (mainly directory listings or self-referential). No 3rd party press mentions or reliable sources. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)
I also suspect that this article is a vanity article self-writen by the head of the company Michael Thomas Dunn, since both these articles along with those for his films were all written by the same user Dodgem4s (talk • contribs) or anonymous IPs. So in light of this evidence, I'm also nominating the following for deletion:
Most of the returned links are either directory listings, or self-promotional (eg. YouTube trailers). Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (films) since none of these films have:
Most importantly, Fails: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseAll of these objections are wrong -- here are some 3rd Party Sources that prove most of these objections incorrect (Alone and Restless, Black Zone, Out of Time, etc.): -DodgeM4S [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
However, I do believe the "Vixen" title should be deleted. That film was supposed to start filming here in July and it never happened. It should be deleted and I tried unsuccessfully to do so. -DodgeM4S
The New York Times Brief/Review is here: [[35]]. Most newspapers seem to delete their articles after a couple of months so there aren't a lot -- and the mainstream media sources don't generally cover a lot of independent film. As for the "Soapbox" comment -- I don't see the listed films are advertisements/They are synopsis content pieces. DodgeM4S (talk
As for merging the articles: I think it is a great idea for most of the individual shorts/documentaries. I will begin the process of merging Steel Legends and The Standoff. However, I think the 2 feature films Alone and Restless and Black Zone may deserve individual coverage (these were large projects in the area). Although, I think the Midnight Conflict short might merit its own article (at least for UCF film program background) since its success prompted the program to allow Digitally Shot (DV) projects in their curriculum -- which had previously been excluded (the film school used 16mm film exclusively until 1998). Here is the updated MTD Studios with the merge. -DodgeM4S 10:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)<[reply]
I think the other pages are satisfactory. Does anyone see any obvious problems with the other pages?
-DodgeM4S 11:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Petros471 10:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Nomination on behalf of User Juro, who is unfamiliar with the AFD process in the English Wikipedia. Article lacks content and context, and appears to be a neologism. Borisblue 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable business, fails WP:CORP, was prod'ed and removed by original author. Gogo Dodo 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heavenly Bodies (strip club) is meets wikipedia's criteria for being a notable entity since it has been the subject of numerous articles in the local media.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhubbard (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable variant of Mafia (game), Google search doesn't even indicate that it would be worth much of a redirect. Article creator CrU did many edits to it back in March, and I persuaded them to move them over to the MafiaScum wiki, but there's some subarticles here that need cleaned up. In addition, the creator hasn't been back to either wiki since April, so I think it's abandonware to boot. -- nae'blis 06:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, signed personal essay that admits the term "energy autonomy" has no specific definition. Opabinia regalis 06:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Alex Jones (radio), nothing to merge, no reason not to redirect. - Bobet 10:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable public access television show. Morton devonshire 06:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how shortly after I say "Might as well make a list of songs about love" in this AfD, this article crops up in my sights. Unmaintainable list that violates WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 07:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated under this AfD:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing article bordering on patent nonsense. Google search for "The Tribunal Church" Joliet returns zero results. Creator removed PROD tag without explanation. Either a hoax, or entirely non-notable -Elmer Clark 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently List of Medium episodes is being improoved, at the present the medium "project" does not need a rogue episode page as all info can be summed up in the list. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to Alex Jones (radio). Kimchi.sg 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this is a real or notable operation of any kind. No reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. The article cites a source which in fact does not mention the operation. Article's talk mentions another source which is Alex Jones talking about Alex Jones on the radio. Weregerbil 08:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Only 34 Google hits. Appears to be a violation of WP:NOR. -Elmer Clark 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please visit
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4004/is_200307/ai_n9242150
Technosocialism is used by an author, who is not me (the original poster of this wiki), to describe Karl Capek's early 20th Century drama Rossum's Universal Robots(R.U.R). I point to this work specifically as a refutation of the term's notability.
Yes technosocialism is a portmanteau. Technosocialism is a concatenation of the words (technology and socialism). Simply being a portmanteau is no grounds for exclusion, though. Smog is a portmanteau and their is an entry for that. It can also be spelled techno-socialism, by the way. I believe it most accurately describes the world at the beginning of the Capek play. Capek's play is ultimately a dsytopia, however, because the robots rise up and slay the humans. I don't think I invented this word or this idea but if you guys are saying that I did, well then I will be more than happy to take credit for it. I guess it just means I'll be famous someday.
Furthermore, the etymology of the word could stem directly from Technophilia.
Please also see technocracy.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little known producer. The Google search turns up 92 hits, 26 unique [51] but most of them are signed comments on blogs or relate to other of Rik Copley's activities as a football pundit... Fails WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO by quite a bit. Pascal.Tesson 09:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a notable song, it has two words! A football chant surely does not deserve its own article. Lurker oi! 10:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable WP:BIO. Vanity. Was up for speedy deletion, but I get the feeling it might have been contested so taking to afd to get a more concrete result. Delete. Petros471 10:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Bobet 10:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable (Halbared 10:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Competition at one summer camp; nonnotable and unverifiable. Author removed prod tag stating that competition was "notable within the camp." NawlinWiki 11:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (move it if you want to). - Bobet 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article existing only to bemoan the lack of an Australian counterpart to the United States Coast Guard.--cj | talk 11:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - The 8 day AfD is not a problem as it was likely left there by passing admins due to a lack of conviction in the debate after 5 days. There is a consensus to keep now.'Blnguyen | rant-line 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable persona, should be merged with James Bulger I elliot 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created due to a (now disproven) rumour. Actual subject of article has no inherent notability, other than his association to the rumour. Hence this should be merged with the James Bulger article. Arthurs does not deserve his own article.I elliot 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Please note that most votes here (including mine) are keep, but were delivered after the closing time. Please consider the late surge in support. - Richardcavell 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Version I originally deleted was undoubtedly had no assertion of notability; this one at least asserts some, so taking it here. Petros471 11:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Looks pretty much like a speedy a3 to me. - Bobet 11:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a mere collection of external links. This article, on the other hand, is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable amateur football league; way below the level for notability established here. NawlinWiki 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 22:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A term which was, according to the article, made up in school one day. 94 unique Googles indicates a lack of any widespread acceptance of this term. Mainly the work of Esteban (talk · contribs) whose edits are almost exclusively to the person and work of Stephen Goodfellow, including adding links to Goodfellow's website. Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, Bad-faith nom strongly suspected. --§hanel 19:38, 19 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)) . |
A hacker is acknowledged as a hacker if and only if his name figures in various high-standard technology sites or technology books. On the contrary most real hackers consider Ankit Fadia as a script-kiddie.
Silina 12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.
-- Tejas Dinkar (http://www.gja.in) [I'm sorry, I'm not a regular Wikipedia Contributor, just posting website to prove that I'm a real person :p] 59.92.133.167 17:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Stubbleboy 09:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[This is a copy and paste job from the subject's web page. I probably should have just speedied the thing. The subject seemed notable, so I gave the creator the opportunity to fix it. Creator followed my advice on changing to the third person, but there has been no substantial rewrite. It is either a copyvio or self-promoting spam. :) Dlohcierekim 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. I will abstain as the article is no longer a copyvio, however it still will need a cleanup. Stubbleboy 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, I don't see anyone arguing for the deletion after the rewrite (and it's not OR anymore). If someone disagrees, feel free to renominate it, with reasons specific to the rewritten article. - Bobet 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is OR, see Talk:Truth#Half-truth.3B_Truths_Paradox •Jim62sch• 13:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The research has been accepted by listed on the following sites: University of Kansas Link List and has been recorded by Lakehead University Magazine.
The concept of 'half-truths' ie especially truths that lie, is a missing link that may explain the 'original sin' from the 'garden of Eden', this has logical implications for several concepts such as truth, and lie, and deception.
The concept of truths that lie is an unrecognized logical error in human philosophy that has implications to most all concepts dealing with forms of logic and philosophy.
Thank you. --Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"To publish is to make publicly known, and in reference to text and images, it can mean distributing paper copies to the public, or putting the content on a website."
Here is the publication, a free to view site, the book will be out in the next few years...for a fee of course.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The half-truth concept has been published previously in various media forms.
Would this not be a form of censorship and contrary to the purpose of this dictionary ?
Thanks again.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a question, not a statement of fact, was it not ?
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Alfred Whitehead did make the connect betweeen half-truths and the devil. For some unfortunate reason we did not appreciate his message.
Thanks
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. And Dave, please note that the only reason it is linked from deception is because the author of Half-truths linked it. JoshuaZ 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep new version written by Dave. JoshuaZ 17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until recently I had not heard of Alfred Whitehead, so tell me if Alfred Whitehead a teacher of philosohpy at Harvard in sthe 50's knew of this, why was it not revealed to the general public ? Was it used against society by some ? of did make the connect betweeen half-truths and the devil.
Very good work by Dave and others to find and post relavent material....!!
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unverifiable CD-ROMs a band once burned. Nominating all seven for deletion:
The first two were ((prod))ed and deprodded.Weregerbil 13:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - and AUTO does not get an automatic delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally speedied (not by me) and contested, but appears to assert notability (100 papers published), so I'm moving it here. My vote is weak delete, doesn't appear any more notable than many other botanists (weak because I'm not an expert in this field); also created by User:Rjbayer, so violates WP:Vanity. NawlinWiki 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Japanese typographic symbols, since it's now mentioned there and the content here looks like original research. - Bobet 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for this page, "Its use is in actuallity shrouded in mystery."♪ The onpu is mostly used by females, but also by males... and foreigners...? This is nonsense. Dekimasu 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Bobet 11:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-proclaimed "master" thief, writing his autobiography without proving/substantiating his claims (see CNN link in article). Moreover, despite his autobio, still non-notable. Delete as per WP:NN. -- P199 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has thousands of articles about various action figures. I think an article for a guy who claims to be a master jewel thief, whether true or not, deserves his own page. The fact that he is an author and released this book is more than enough reason to have his own page. Did you write a book?
The result was keep. - Bobet 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a not particulary noteworthy journalist, listing here for community consensus. No Vote exolon 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for re-instating. I am the author of the article and the great granddaughter of A. F. Pirie. I can improve the article per your welcome comments. I do have verifiable sources for my statements - I hold all his original correspondence, newspaper clippings from 1870s to 1903, Press badge, Chicago Press conference speeches, letter from Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, and genealogical info (funeral card), photos, etc. Part of the biography can be backed up with his entry in Canada's "Who's Who" of 1898 by Morgan[64] which I can add as further reading. I wrote from my overall research, rather than utilizing the work of others, but naturally, I can go back and source everything. His obituary provides further info and appeared in the Toronto Star, Toronto Evening Telegram, the Globe, Regina Leader, Hamilton Times, and nearly every newspaper in Canada. Yes, he is unknown today, but in terms of 1880s Toronto - he was well known and respected. In terms of Mr. George Pirie, I hold his correspondence from the 1840s to 1860s, his obituaries, financial papers, and photographs. Mr. Pirie faced greater obstacles than his son as he was establishing himself in Canada, but his contributions to Guelph were significant in his day. That being said, I respect the input of others. Once again thank you for your consideration. Mpirie 00:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - stronger views put across by those in favour of deletion, most of the keep votes are from one IP anyway. — FireFox (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2006
PROD tag removed without comment or improvement. Advertising for nonnotable book. User:Angr 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orginal research and vanity. Opening sentance appears to have problems with facts and grammer. It doesn't get much better.Geni 15:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
does not compute
?" WP:NOR, WP:VAIN, WP:POV and WP:BOLLOCKS all apply. The only good news is that this verges so far into the patent nonsense realm that I doubt people could base healthcare decisions upon it (but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me). Conspiratorially yours, Anville 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only 11 Hits on Google (And none even match up with this exact name), and no sources to prove this person even exists. Plus not to mention no sources to prove information is even real. Skarlotte 15:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. «ct» (tk|e) 06:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to upload information about a minor character in a non-notable videogame. Skarlotte 15:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, advertising/spam. See also first nom, where it was speedied for copyvio. Delete. –Chacor 15:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. «ct» (tk|e) 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again another pointless character in a minor and non-notable videogame. This page seems to be the target of more vandalism too, so it's deletion will assist in the prevention of vandalism on Wikipedia as well. Skarlotte 15:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable...sandwich? A limited time sandwich does not deserve it's own aticle on Wiki. Prod removed without reason Wildthing61476 15:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Un-notable primary school in Scotland. No articles for similar schools in Wikipedia. No links other than to Peterculter where all the information in this article already exists Catchpole 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, non-notable website, fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank 693,090 VoiceOfReason 15:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. —Celestianpower háblame 21:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable videogame that is also a hot-spot for vandalism. The deletion of this article as well as with it's sister pages of minor and non-notable characters will help prevent further vandalism on Wikipedia. Please understand that I'm aware the game is large in popularity in Japan. But this is why we have a Wiki in Japanese, is it not? An article already exists in J-Wiki, however it's lacking the length of information the english article has. Possibly the article could be translated back to Japanese, merged with the Japanese article and then the english one could be deleted? Thanks for understanding. Skarlotte 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
0-172 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly ficticious religious order from the book The_Pilgrimage. Pseudo-Latin name would mean "King, the lamb of the world". Google hits seem to return to the book or the author or to a branch of Free Masonry. Looks like something the author made up. Please see the article talk page for more details. Not sure what to do with this. Probably delete. Not enough to merge back to the book. Doubt verifiability, only reference seems to be in the book. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with the AFD's on Current Wrestling Roster, Historic Wrestling Roster and Historical Tag Team List. This is violation of WP:LC. The list is incomplete, it is redundant to other lists already on Wikipedia and most importantly, this list is unencyclopedic. And I've taken this chance to warn the user creating these lists, to stop. — Moe Epsilon 15:47 August 19 '06
The result was speedy delete, per WP:CSD A3. Article consists entirely of a rephrasing of the title, and a link elsewhere. The editors below who want various different things to exist here (including, bizarrely, a "Soft redirect using ((w)) to wiktionary" - ((w)) is a navigation template for articles relating to a Japanese girl band who wear silly dresses) are, of course, free to do so as AfD does not make binding decisions on what content a page should contain.
Note, however, that an article consisting solely of a soft redirect to Wiktionary would also be speediable under the same criterion (link elsewhere). WP:DICK and other projectspace soft redirects, which the editors supporting that may have been thinking of, are not covered by that CSD, which is for articles only. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, bit of an unusual AfD here. This article has been getting created, deleted, altered, moved and so on for about 2 months. Basically some people want it to be a cross-namespace redirect, others don't, some want it now to define notability in a non-Wikipedia-centric way... which seems like a dicdef to me. Anyway, no vote on my part yet, I'd just like to see a more definitive resolution reached through consensus. Thanks. --W.marsh 16:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: due to unanimous consensus that this does not merit a separate page, and the A Cappella Choir is already mentioned in Austin College, redirected there, and anyone who believes they merit more text can follow the redirect back and look in the history of this page in order to merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another non-notable college choir; unless sources can be produced, it should be deleted or merged with Austin College. Crystallina 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmoi
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the proposed guidelines at WP:ORG and per lack of sources - see WP:RS. Crystallina 16:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7 while AFD was in progress. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that historical subjects are difficult (WP:N), but this man, per the information given in the article, does not seem to have done anything that established notability per WP:BIO. The external link given is a run-of-the-mill lineage site. Crystallina 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John Mould is a direct descendant of Sir Richard Pargitor of Greatworth, Northamptonshire England mentioned in the 1564 Visitations of Northamptonshire.
John's family also ties into the line of Sir Francis Willoughby of Wollaton, England - Knight
John Mould's wife Mary Ann Beeman is a documented, proven and accepted descendant of William White - Pilgrim of the Mayflower.
Dead Presidents & British royalty should not be the only individuals history included on Wikipedia in my opinion. I have been working on adding color to this article, in addition to categories and additional relevant links. Please notice that there are significant notes, maps, and historical information and documentation on the main site dedicated to this individual. There is nothing trivial about the amount of research and organization spent regarding this individual. Thanks in advance for your reconsideration in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LvBohemian (talk • contribs)
Please reconsider[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Don.27t_delete_historical_persons_based_on_modern_tests Do
not delete based on modern tests]
Don't delete historical persons based on modern tests
Persons who were of note in their time and place are marked based on the modern test of "I can't find information about them online". Most historical persons of note, in their time, do not have information online, because Google is not the repository of all knowledge. An online search, for historical persons of note, is biased toward modern persons, therefore should not be the criteria for determination of notability.
Existing rules are sufficient The no original research rule keeps out most of what is unencyclopedic. Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied.
Delete as not notable. Another question might be whether he owned land that was subsequently used for some notable purpose. To be fair, the article does identify him as a mason (someone who builds structures with stone and brick, rather than a Freemason, which he was as well) by occupation, but only in the second-last paragraph. This is what journalists call "burying your lede". TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns. I'm sure a lot of effort went into this research, but there's no (stated) reason this person deserves an encyclopedia article. · rodii · 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopedia article. Possibly appropriate for Wikibooks, but not for wikipedia. --Gavia immer 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB adSPAMcruftVERTISEMENT Rklawton 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not an arbitrary list of items. This would be much better served as a category. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Spice Girls discography is an un-needed article that contains a lot of inaccurate and inappropriate information. The group released only three albums and 10 singles - so that information can easily be merged with the main Spice Girls article. The rest of the information in the article relates to the solo releases made by each member of the group; a Melanie C album release, for example, shouldn't be included on a article detailing information relating to the group that she used to be in. Also, the solo information already exists in the Victoria Beckham, Emma Bunton, Melanie B, Geri Halliwell and Melanie C articles - so it is simply repeating already existing information.
So I propose that the Spice Girls discography be deleted and the information relating to Spice Girls' release be merged with Spice Girls article. Rimmers 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. An unusual lack of participation in this AfD considering the number of single-purpose accounts, but Andrew's coherent argument speaks louder than any number of 'delete per nom' votes, and after discounting single-purpose accounts (and their arguments which consist largely of personal attacks and handwaving) I believe we have a consensus for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity/Non-notability. Article is almost for sure created by the company founder, given the page history and the other contributions of Voy7 (a.k.a. R.Watts) and 66.214.253.155 (inserting links to website). The author claims that the company mastered a hit song/cd and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. A search on Google for "Art mastering" gives the company webpage and a few mentionings on forums and the competing company audioplexus (links to which the author has vigorously replaced by own links in Audio mastering). Han-Kwang 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, after discounting 'votes' from anonymous IPs (who could be from numerous people or one), and with regard to the good research done on the nature of the external links.
It would be nice if 'vote tampering' was simply reverted on sight (watchlist AfDs, please). Alerting me of it at the end does not help much, because there's no way I can find out everything that was changed and repair the damage at this late stage. Some random diff-clicking made me notice that Dlyons' withdrawal of his 'keep' argument was reverted by an IP [71], and this was never reverted. I note that purely as an example for those reviewing this discussion, as I repeat that I can't be expected to find every instance where this might have happened. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion Vanity page of low quality and no notability. If you look more closely, the cited "publications" are mainly his blog and links to essay mills. A notable academic should have lots of peer-reviewed publications, but I can't see any. The links to this page are also vanity, check out Talk:Lewis A. Coser. Leibniz 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
are definetely neither academic junk nor scholarly mill, but the very contrary, and that is why that bizarre policy Mr. Leibniz is running at en.wikipedia.org - not as a long-distance runner but as a runners amok - should be ended. Subito. M. Eser, Aug. 22, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 80.136.121.85 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Please note that it does not say: has written a book, has a blog, or anything like that. Nothing that has been mentioned in the discussion comes even close to establishing any of these criteria. Leibniz 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– I had a look on the “history” of the very method Leibniz systematically did apply in the “case” of Dr Richard Albrecht the last three days since he nominated Dr A. for deletion (Aug. 19, 207, 18:32)[1]: for example Leibniz not only neglected the wikipedia principle according to “Living People” like Dr. A. (who, as far as I know, is still alive): “potentially libellous material must be removed immediately”, but also any rational rule of any “open debate” run publicly and expressed in another wikipedia-principle according to the deletion process. Moreover, whenever read thoroughly, the Leibnitz-“history” from Aug, 19, 2006, to Aug, 22, 2006, clearly and without any doubt demonstrates that this man is manipulating as his best: what Leibnitz stigmatized as essay mill when characterizing scholarly texts of Dr A. on Aug. 20, 2006, 14:23, the next days got what sociologists name "self-fulfilling prophecy” (Robert K. Merton): prominent en.wikipedia-member Leibniz himself - and nobody else - defined what he had proclaimed as such (Aug. 22, 2006). Finally, for detecting Leibniz´ numerous manipulations needs some time, Leibniz declared, for reasons, Dr. A.s “nomination” for deletion as an urgent case, thinking that after Dr. A´s entry will be wiped out nobody will be interested in this individual “case”, and what he, Leibniz, really did will be hidden forever. - M. Falke, Aug. 23, 2006
[1] 15:18, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (tag) (top) 14:52, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Essay mill (top) 14:28, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Essay mill 13:49, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Essay mill 13:44, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Essay mill (top) 12:30, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (2 tags) (top) 20:11, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz 18:36, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellgauth (?Hellgauth) 18:06, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TruthbringerToronto (?TruthbringerToronto) 18:00, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomophobia (?Tomophobia) 17:54, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomophobia (?Tomophobia) 17:03, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Keim 16:07, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring of darkness (?Ring of darkness) 16:00, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wessner star (?Wessner star) 15:08, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raffi Meneshian (?Raffi Meneshian) 14:43, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Keim (?Walter Keim) 13:57, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli (?Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli) 11:54, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Bad Münstereifel (rm another of his self-promotions) (top) 11:50, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Friedrich Engels (rm ridiculous self-promotion and spam link to essay mill) 11:12, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht 10:44, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Keim (?Walter Keim) 10:41, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 21 10:40, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Keim (First deletion reason) 10:32, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Walter Keim (nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) 10:08, 21 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 22:56, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht - I'm for speedy) 21:20, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepless night (?Sleepless night) 20:50, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m User:Leibniz (top) 18:55, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 18:51, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz - change to total rewrite) 18:34, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 18:29, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elite Roleplay (?Elite Roleplay) 18:19, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 18:08, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tower Demon Claw (book) (?The Tower Demon Claw (book)) (top) 18:05, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Bastian (?Josef Bastian) 18:00, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 17:44, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 15:36, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 15:14, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 14:36, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 14:28, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht 12:45, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Tiamat (?Tiamet as a Planet - Wrong page, see disambiguation) (top) 12:37, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:39, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:35, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wolfgang Abendroth (AfD) 01:24, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:19, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:17, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 20 01:15, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz 01:24, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:19, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz (?Reinhard Opitz) 01:17, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 20 01:15, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reinhard Opitz 01:09, 20 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Reinhard Opitz (nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) 23:30, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 20:38, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht - pubs?) 19:15, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 19:07, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 18:46, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht (?Richard Albrecht) 18:40, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 19 (Richard Albrecht) 18:38, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Albrecht 18:32, 19 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Richard Albrecht (nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.83.183 (talk • contribs)
Somebody self-naming after the German philosopher Leibniz was at work 11:50, 21 August 2006. Under the label "ridiculous self-promotion and spam link to essay mill" this man deleted a passage in the Friedrich Engels entry on "The General & His Shadow". The passage Leibniz deleted runs as follows:
"In remembrance of the historical democratic and socialist movements in Germany in 1848/1849, the German social psychologist Richard Albrecht read a public lecture in Cologne (Rhineland), 150 years later in 1988, on the specific role Frederick Engels played as an anti-Prussian partisan and counterpart of the Prussian police agent Dr. Wilhelm Stieber (alias Schmidt). This scholarly piece first appeared in print in 2000 (Almanach der Varnhagen-Gesellschaft, ed. Dr. Nikolaus Gatter, vol. 1 (2000), 197-208, Berlin: Verlag Arno Spitz ISBN 3-8305-0025-4; but it became available online free of charge in 2004. It gives insights into the personality of Frederick Engels (nicknamed "the general") before, during and after his emigration (first to Basel in Switzerland, then to Manchester): see Richard Albrecht, "Gegenspieler - Der General und sein Schatten: Engels, Stieber & die preußische Reaktion 1851/52. Historischer Bericht zum ersten Kommunistenprozeß zu Köln" [Counterparts - The General and His Shadow: Engels, Stieber & the Prussian Reactionary Forces, 1851/52. Another look at the first "Colonial Communist Trial"] [[73]]."
Who so ever will read this documentary essay written by an experienced German author, e.g. the online-version (I did, and gave the actual link), will, as a matter of fact, ascertain that this piece, originally a public lecture, in 1998, published in 2000 (printed, in an anthology which appeared at Arno Spitz, Berlin), and 2004 (as published online by GRIN Verlag für akademische Texte, Munich) is by no means any "essay mill" in the definition Leibnitz coined out when, yesterday, posting five times (starting 13:39, and ending top 20:25): "a business, usually online, which dishonestly sells essays and other forms of homework assignments to students who are incapable or unwilling to do it themselves"), but is a legitime scholarly publication completely free of charge.
Friedrich Engels himself once stated: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", and that´s why I do hope that relevant en.wikipedia.org-admins will, as soon as possible, stop future vandal acts of Mr. Leibniz as a chap who indeed, the last days, was running amok when executing his personal policy of annihilating Richard Albrecht and other still living German left-wing scholars and civil right figures. -M. Falke, Aug. 23, 2006
I Personally don't think that the the article needsw to be deleted, but it should be re-written as a more neutral article, since the current one seems to just be pro-Albrecht.-GDJC
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced and purely speculative. John254 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 02:18, 26 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)) . |
Originally prod tagged by Anthony.bradbury with the concern: Evangelical text; not encyclopedic. Prod2a added by me: Additionally the author is not in a position to decide what edits may or may not be made; this in itself is an attempt to maintain the POV of the page. Author then attempted to dispute the prod both on the article's talk page and on User_talk:Anthony.bradbury's but did not remove the prod tag. Following discussion on the article's talk page author proceeded to accuse Anthony.bradbury of bias against Sikhism, and continued by refactoring discussions on both my and AB's talk pages. Author has now removed prrod tag, so I am taking this article to AfD to give the opportunity for wider debate, and am nominating it for deletion on the grounds that as it stands it is a POV article, probably OR, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Tonywalton | Talk 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hari I think you are getting off the mark---its not needed --anger will not convince anyone to follow you only by example are leaders of real repute born.
As for the editor--For Gods sake have some sense of fair play.YOU CANT DELETE THE ARTICLE ONLY IMPROVE IT>by shedding more light on it.
If you treat articles on Christianity different from any another Religion you are breaching a very important Law of this country. Do you really want it printed in the national papers? So take heed and try to understand the situation.
Obviously there are some scholars who have misinterpreted the SGGS and to their own conviction have hijacked the True Meaning.
The next logical question is who has the rightful last word on SGGS in Sikhism??
Sikhism is founded on very democratic principles. In that there is no co-ertion to any viewpoint and an individual is allowed to arrive at his or her own conclusion and develope at his own pace.
This is so correct as I often find that as a person progresses spiritually, greater insight is brougt upon the subject matter and therefore the meaning of the texts just gets deeper and deeper.
Therefore it is a folly to argue as to who is right or wrong but the correct thing to do is to experience the the spirituality within the the SGGS and learn therefrom by actually living a righteous life and meditation only such persons acquire the wisdom contained within SGGS.
There have been many Saints of high repute who have arrived at the same conclusion as Hari singh but have not uttered a word as to eat or not to eat meat--by their very presence you know instinctively that it is wrong to kill for meat. And I have met such Saints.
This debate will live on as will the many shades of people ranging from pure spirit to pure matter.That is not a proplem either in Sikhism as we evolve spiritually too.
So all is in Harmony--dont worry yourselves foolishly--God is in charge.
JUST RELATE THE TEXTS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND LETS EACH INDIVIDUAL ARRIVE AT HIS OWN CONCLUSION. --Ksingh20 05:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to indicate this website started this year is in any way notable. Delete exolon 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was big keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is so not notable. All he's done is won Big Brother. talk to JD wants e-mail 19:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability threshold for companies in every imaginable way. GBP 85,200 may buy a full page ad in the Economist, but a Wikipedia article is not included with that. --Pjacobi 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(With the rather one-sidedness of this discussion, should the deletion box be removed?) ~ Nick.sideras 23:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, AfD does not govern merges; that is up to those that want it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, they don't even have a record deal. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band will be signed in a matter of days by a major record deal
The result was speedy delete CSD G7. Kimchi.sg 10:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. Apparently a piece of fiction from a non-notable author, being serialized in a non-notable film publication, but not a film project. Looks like one chapter ([77]) has been published. No other sites appear to link to or discuss it, or even notice it. Non-notable fiction. Fan-1967 19:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Online pornography site based in Greece. Specified search terms in Google produces less than 1500 results ("Lotus DVD" Porno (1490), "Lotus DVD" erotic (650) and "Lotus DVD" Greece (1040)). A previous attempt to propose a speedy delete was removed by an edit (which also glossies a few wordings) with an irrelevant edit summary. Possible (porn) advertising. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
The result was no consensus defaults to keep — FireFox (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2006
Non-notable family member of editor who created this article. Two hits on Google, both in Italian. ... Kenosis 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep per Truthbringer. Jim, this would be a good point to bring up at WP:BIO not on an individual AfD. JoshuaZ 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Delete per Kenosis' translation, with no prejudice against recreation if an actual source can be found. JoshuaZ 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep after Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article is just a couple of links and school is not obviously noteworthy to me Blood red sandman 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is totally unverified. Apears to have no signifigance. Does anyone know of this place who can verify it exists and is significant? Blood red sandman 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, i was not aware that the miners strike started here. Speedy Keep - Blood red sandman 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly accurate article. Quite significant in the area due to the fact that it is where the strike started and it is now a successful retail park providing numerous jobs. Totally agree with the access problems on a weekend. Would be nice to see a little more about the colliery in the article. Nig. 24-08-2006 (Sorry, bit of a newbie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.147.166 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 August 2006
The result was Keep all Naconkantari 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles consist of straight quotes from the Bible, with at most two lines of interpretation, unsourced. Wikipedia is not a directory. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following are also nominated for the same reason:
The following is a navigational template linking to all of these articles (and others, sometimes more than once):
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samsara (talk • contribs) .
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harisingh (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
And while we are listing Biblical parables, why not list some good ones that show that these stubs can be expanded into proper encydlopedic articles. Why, may I ask, did the nomintor not list these?
--Ezeu 05:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree that they seriously need to be improved so that they are more than just quotations from a particular religious source. However, given that these stories and parables are alluded to in all manner of litertaure and art, people will certainly look to an encyclopaedia to find out what the story is rather than try to find it in a Bible. I intend to improve a few of these, for example add an explanation of what the Unjust Steward actually does that is unjust, as well as what his solution actually implies. Whether we merge or keep them, they need to be here for people who will naturally look to an encyclopaedia to tell them in a neutral way what these stories are.--Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Today I have added some very useful references and commentary on The Vine, i vote that at the very least this article should stay, but i think we should give all of the articles a little more time, people will add to them. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.127.53 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 August 2006
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is comprised entirely of unreferenced negative information. John254 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ranking system or website for mixed martial arts fighters. The ranking system is new, unacknowledged by the MMA news media (Sherdog.com, MMAWeekly.com, etc), and is among a crowded field of ranking systems (like boxing, anyone can create a ranking list for fighters). Page creator removed prod. hateless 21:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no reason to exist outside of Digitalis. Merge if there is anything of note. ccwaters 21:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Contested A7 speedy deletion. Message on my talk page includes claim of "This is the largest group on MySpace", which is claim on notability and 199992 sounds like a lot of members, so bringing here for full discussion. Petros471 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC. ccwaters 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination — this was inappropriately batched in with the Jennifer Pereira/Nikki Hipkin AFD, but really does need to be considered separately because the claim of notability here (city councillor and deputy mayor of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and major party candidate in the Canadian federal election, 2004) is sufficiently different from the other two as to make it inappropriate to consider them as a group. No vote from me; I'm not entirely convinced of notability, but since others are, since the article is potentially expandable, and since I wouldn't be nominating this outside of this particular situation, I leave it to consensus to decide. Bearcat 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced and purely speculative. John254 21:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De-proded. This article is a vanity page on 'roids; it fails WP:BIO and has turned into a first-person political screed. Gems like "This is clearly part of a vendetta against Tim, and 100% of people who matter agree. Unless you're a total idiot, you'd concur if you were an eyewitness" are, to say the least, POV.
Author's only provided attempts at verifiable notability include links to the subjects non-notable blog & internet forum and the subject's book, ranked #1,734,650 in book sales at Amazon (published by Lulu Press, a vanity press). Scientizzle 21:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Verifiability has been established by the Harvard Crimson and SMS publications and (arguably) by the e-mail. However, Rklawton's point that a joke holiday celebrated by 1000 academics is not notable, has not been disputed by any evidence brought up here. -- Samir धर्म 07:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... and yet another thing made up in school one day. Less than 500 Google hits, many of them mirrors. It may be "real" in a few people's minds, but it's not real notable, and it really doesn't rate an article in an encyclopedia. Rklawton 22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi!
I'm writing regarding the discussion on Wikipedia about the possible deletion of the article on Yellow Pigs Day. (I don't have a wiki login, and it would be silly to create one just to contribute factual information to a discussion there.) I am one of the Co-Directors of the Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics, and a faculty member in Mathematics at Smith College. I did a little bit of checking into Wiki's definition of "reliable source"; I count as a reliable source because I am speaking within my fields of expertise, and it's easily verifiable that I have this field of expertise (I'm listed on the faculty at Smith, in the Mathematics Genealogy Project, on my graduate advisor's home page, etc.). Anyone who thinks this email has been falsified may contact me for confirmation of its validity.
I'd like to clarify some issues that seem somewhat murky in the discussion. For example, HCSSiM is not local but national in scope and permeates the American professional mathematics community. We are the second-oldest of the five national-level programs for high-ability high-school students. The program has more than 1550 alumns, all of whom have experienced YP Day. We do not explain YP Day on our webpage just as we do not explain the significance of the yellow pig or the number seventeen; nevertheless it is a holiday which we celebrate each year and about which questions are frequently asked. (Our website is primarily there for recruiting purposes and secondarily for alumn use. We're not in the business of educating the public, unlike encyclopedias which have public edification among their primary purposes.) There are mathematicians outside the HCSSiM community who celebrate Yellow Pigs Day. In fact, most of the time when I run into a colleague who is aware of YP Day, he/she assumes that the primary connection is to Mike Spivak rather than to HCSSiM. Spivak, by the way, is considered a notable mathematician by the mathematics community---in fact, I'd heard of him long before I'd heard of HCSSiM.
Now, this information may not convince anyone that the article is worth keeping, but at least there's now a reliable source to cite.
--sarah-marie belcastro." Qqwref 21:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For references to YP day and the associated HCSSiM program, see:
--Gruepig 05:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was poorly written in a non-encyclopedia format. The content is hard to follow and not of any real use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Schiff (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 August 2006
The result was Speedy delete; userfy. — ERcheck (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apears to be a self-created vanity page. Blood red sandman 22:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete — FireFox (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2006
University club, not notable. Astrotrain 23:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nandesuka 12:46, 24 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)) . |
Mensa International is a social organization that requires annual dues for membership, which they will neither confirm nor deny. Being a member does not represent a lifetime achievement (unlike List of Eagle Scouts or List of Nobel laureates), but merely a genetic predisposition to score higher than 98% of the population on a certain kind of test.
"Member" is also unqualified ... should former or deceased members be listed as well, such as Ian Meldrum and Isaac Asimov?
Six million people in the US alone are "Mensa qualified", although less than 1% (around 50,000) are currently members ... most "famous" people (like anyone who has won a Nobel Prize or a Pulitzer Prize) are by definition potential members, but for reasons of their own, they have chosen not to pay the annual dues.
Mensa may be "the largest, oldest, and most well-known high IQ society in the world," but there are several others whose requirements are much higher and restrictive (1:1000 as opposed to 1:50), and whose members are more worthy of being considered geniuses.
If anything, this should be a Category with a Tag, rather than just an arbitrary list that will require constant monitoring. The History of the article shows that it is a magnet for trolls and vandals.
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennette (talk • contribs)
Delete with extreme prejudice! This article is yet another bloody smeggy list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a very brief one sentence introduction. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. It may be better if it were a category. Displaced Brit 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice! Per displaced brit. Extreme Prejudice... I like that. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable media baseball Game. Both speedy and prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as non-notable vanity advertising. Particularly like the copyright notice placed at the end of the article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity/advertising page Wildthing61476 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]