The result of the debate was Speedy delete, but not by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oh my, the wonders of the internets! We are not voting on a website, or webforum, instead we're voting on a specific forum thread! I've not even bothered to Prod this, as I know someone will inevitably remove it, maybe one of the "near legendary GDT Crew". I wonder who it would have been, maybe "Oreo- A real life black person."? I am quite possibly breaking the first rule of GDT which is to "Respect the GDT", and for that I apologise. - Hahnchen 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^Stop being a jerk. This is an important reference for those who are interested.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.213.212 (talk • contribs)
I used that article as a reference on one of my research papers at Yale.
lol thit is tutmosis, i was jk. i had something uncomfortable between my cheeks at the time, but it's been removed. - tutmosis 00:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.183.38 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- - This page provides much information to those new to PBN/GDT. If you dont understand the topic, then simply move on
`
The result of the debate was redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball speculation at this time. Carnival's most recent press release on the matter of new vessels (that I can find) indicates only three, Carnival Freedom, Carnival Splendor, and a 130,000 ton Un-Named Carnival Ship, none of which come remotely close to the size of the predicted vessel mentioned here. I also doubt they'd name this vessel 'before' naming the 130,000 tn ship.
An anon user removed my prodtag and added an article from Florida Today, which in my opinion says "its all speculation" The CEOs of Carnival and Fincantieri (Carnival's preferred shipbuilder) say that the "Pinnacle Project" (as dubbed by the paper) is at the discussion stage, with "nothing on the table". -- saberwyn 00:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep - great work by BigDT. FCYTravis 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an absolutely unorganized, unwikified, uncited mess. POV issues abound, there is no objective or critical analysis within the article. Suggest deletion or, failing that, complete overhaul. AscendedAnathema 00:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Since the consensus was split between I Am Woman and Burger King, a soft redirect will remain on the page until another discussion has intervened. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a new article for every new commercial? Wickethewok 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mostly Rainy 02:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this nomination. However, it looks like it is a dictionnary article. It could be redirected to some appropriate page (which page?). Short of this, it's a delete Tony Bruguier 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mostly Rainy 02:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glossary definition with insufficient scope to warrant encyclopedic article. Lack of content precludes merging, so delete. Girolamo Savonarola 00:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep, moved to TfD. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This Userbox is polemic and should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong 00:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:WEB & WP:NOT. Aeon 01:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
while I would understand completely, deletion of this article, the entry itself should exist within wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.173.182 (talk • contribs)
BMXboard is a well known resource through out the bmx community, like Google is to the general public. It shouldn't be deleted— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.166.115 (talk • contribs)
Ok, so why can't there be an article on bmxboard? This is an encyclopedia, right? Well, Merriam-Webster reads that "... an encyclopedia is: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." Bmxboard is no different than the Romans. They were a particular group of people, and so is bmxboard. Bmxboard is a niche of BMX riders. I have to ask how bmxboard is different than having Star Trek on this website. Star Trek is definitely a niche. At least bmxboard is real, you can participate in it, you can meet people from it. I have driven to both Miami, Florida and Binghamon, NY, just to meet people that participate on bmxboard. And as far as not having an infinite amount of server space, hard drives are so cheap right now, along with bandwidth, do you really think that the agrument of servers is jusifiable, with this article currently taking up a mere 525 bytes of space (This discussion takes up more than that). Regardless of whether this article makes it or not, bmxboard is definitely a part of the bmx community' it has even been written about in nationly published magazines that anyone can pick up at even a local Wal*Mart (Ride BMX, Ride UK, Dig BMX, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmxky (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As can be guessed from the title, hopelessly POV and OR JChap 01:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 4 June 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)) . |
Duplicate page; duplicate page is being considered for deletion as per JChap2007 (talk · contribs) Hobbeslover 01:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entry on non notable person as far as I can tell Equendil 02:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was RENAME -- 9cds(talk) 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been superceded by the Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification articles. As for now, it's just a target for maintenance bots and community fix efforts; it hasn't had a real updated in months. The topic name isn't something anyone would search for, and as a result there's no organic links to the topic. The humane thing to do is to put it down. --Mikeblas 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Expanded to demonstrate notability. More coming soon. A note of reproach to user:Vald (the stub creator): leaving just a line without any reference is really bad and costed many people lots of trouble. `'mikka (t) 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short vanity article, don't know this person. Mostly Rainy 02:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. TheProject 07:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN musician. Google doesn't return anything, and Prospect Marching Band seems to be a high school marching band. Maybe this guy is notable for having been in high school for 24 years? Previous PROD notice was deleted. N. Harmon 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete keep. Mailer Diablo 08:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title is inherently POV, and the article does not provide useful information beyond what is already in other articles. Delete. If kept, should be divided into multiple articles. --Nlu (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Keep If Vizjim's edits stick. Not yet withdrawing nomination in case edit war erupts over this. --Nlu (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)In light of return of editor and attempt to restore the deleted junk, Delete (because it's not worth it, in my opinion, to maintain the page which she will surely try to reinsert and reinsert the POV content). --Nlu (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax/speculation. There is no entry for the movie at IMDB, and a search of Disney's website turns up no results. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had ((prod))ed this unsourced and badly title article before with the reason "unreferenced speculation about the future, WP:NOT a crystal ball, also opninion/original research WP:NOR" but the prod was removed with the comment "Mayan apocalypse theories are a liegitimate phenomenon, see article on 2012". As the only verifiable non-speculative content of this article is "December 21st 2012 is the end of the Mayan Calender." I suggest we just delete it. Kusma (討諭) 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. The very definition of an unmaintainable list. It could include everything from Medea knifing her children right up to Mufasa in The Lion King and beyond. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it sounds like nonsense and is nonverifiable (sounds like a play on Mole (unit)). I don't think it's speedyable, however, as it doesn't meet any of the criteria. The text itself is very readable, even if the concept sounds crazy. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect to Angelina Jolie. --Ezeu 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to believe this child (distinct from the parents) will be notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Yamla 03:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What other child's birth led to 4.1 million dollars being donated to charity?
The result of the debate was delete--Ezeu 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This organisation is real but probably very small. See Google UK [8] and also [9] Article may be mockery of the "local Jewish family [who] act as the public face of HaMaayan" and/or the ambitions of the organisation. (I gave this a category without reading it carefully - newly-added joke tag makes me see my mistake.) HJMG 11:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying but as far as I can see the organisation is real, as shown from the google search and the charity commission website. If it is small, it was nevertheless big enough for its trustee to be interviewed by the Cambridge Evening News as a representative of the Cambridge Jewish community so it can't be that small. In any event, wikipedia has hundreds of pages on individual churches, synagogues, temples or cults with only a few hundred members (i've certainly read quite a few here!). HJMG - would you not agree with me that we should maybe be concentrating on making the page better and not removing it based on current knowledge. look forward to hearing your thoughts - i am new round here so apologies if i have something wrong. Camuvan --Camuvan
wikihalas says - i know the organisation of hamaayan a bit although i am not a member -- i was in cam for a bit and they are definitely there! i know some of their beliefs are considered a bit bizarre by mainstream judaism FROM WIKIHALAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.187.89 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2006
The result of the debate was Delete. I'd removed most of the text and was about to add my 'strong delete' but what the heck? There's absolutely zero chance of this being Kept, so I'm closing now citing WP:SNOW. kingboyk 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing sounds like an advertisment for Slayer. Additionally, the article's content is not widely regarded as factual. There are also highly undesirable suggestions, like "Kill the neighbor's dog and blame it on Slayer." Regalion 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article concerns small scholarship program serving thirty students a year. Article is totally unsourced except for link to scholarship program itself and reads like a press release. Source of assertion that this is "widely recognized as one of the most innovative collegiate merit scholarships in the U.S." appears to be UNC press release [10]. Subject is not notable, particularly when compared with other scholarships in this category serving thousands of students. Lastexit 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last AfD resulted in no consensus (only four comments). Recipe in verse has now been sent to the cookbook. TheProject 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sankta lusse" has zero google hits ... the article is barely coherent ... see also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual warfare BigDT 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contesting a prod. Article states notability, but is unsourced, I can't find her using google, might be a hoax. No vote Eivindt@c 03:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was the article to go for deletion, do not merge, do not redirect., . Mailer Diablo 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page. See related AfD. TheProject 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC). See below for details[reply]
Article is verbatim copy of marketing cruft for musician on commercial website (which by itself makes it either a vanity article or a copyvio); [16] the artist does not appear on allmusic.com or discogs.com; [17] [18] the article lists a single album with a record label that has precisely one Google hit, to this very Wikipedia article [19] – suggesting a vanity record publication, and not in compliance with Wikipedia:Notability (music) or Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines; entire history of article is from one anon username with no history on any other article, and one IP address with no contributions outside the three days in which the entire history of this article is listed. [20] [21] [22] - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 03:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism, no Google hits, no source given. Crystallina 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS -- 9cds(talk) 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person appears non-notable, and claims of being well known are quite unverfiable and unsourced. Despite extensive Googling, the best I can come up on regarding this Joseph Campbell is his own website selling his own autobiography. That website also seems to make him out to be well known, or a "pioneering scientists", but nothing else seems to support it. I might turn my vote around if credible sources are given. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN, unverifiable. Ezeu 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/fhlcatalog/titledetailsframe.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=557766&disp=Brighton%2C+Thornley%2C+Timmins%2C+famil&first=undefined&last=undefined TruthbringerToronto 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Manifesto (album). --Ezeu 01:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Individual song does not seem notable. I'd argue that Edith Sitwell's poem should have an article at this space. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC) on the grounds of nonsense and as a hoax-attack page[reply]
This one speaks for itself, I think. Crystallina 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC), due to lack of coherent assertion of notability, regardless of the truthfulness of the article.[reply]
Google search (standard disclaimer applies) yields 12 hits, none of which substantiate the notion that Lorraine Cormican is a comedian, much less a notable comedian. Sole author User:JFKLBJRMN has not contributed to any other article. Smells like a fabrication. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By consensus at DRV, this result is now a No Consensus/default keep. Xoloz 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable supermarket. Fails WP:CORP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Heinen's stub is not intended to advertise the store whatsoever. It is merely providing information on a local community-based grocery store. Perhaps it could be placed within a larger group of articles that discusses community-based grocery stores and their importance in modern suburban areas. Notability need not be a concept of national concern. Grocery stores small and large contribute to the growth of cities alike. They equally bring about the ideas of economy, consumerism, and small business.
Heinen's is comparable to many other grocery stores such as Giant Eagle, and it can furthermore be identified as a competing force against these stores. It should not be considered non-notable simply because it is a local chain in its infancy.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heinen%27s"
I plan on and intend to add additional information that will help make the subject matter more applicable and more notable to the general public. Bluebul1989 04:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]
I don't understand why WP:CORP must be the basis for acceptance. Small and growing businesses have little or no chance against it and should be judged using other criteria. Heinen's is a well-known grocery competitor in Ohio and the greater Cleveland area. For information about Heinen's, view [24]. Additionally, Heinen's is a grocer partner of Continental Airlines. [25]. Bluebul1989 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]
Here is a site listing financial information and rankings of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004. Heinen's is ranked within the top 100 on this list. Its sales volume was calculated to be between 100 and 499 million dollars. Heinen's had 2,200 employees at this time and its ranking had increased 42.7% in a one year period. [26]. Bluebul1989 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]
Though the chain is small, upon further research I have discovered that it passes 2 out of 3 of the criteria required to be considered notable listed in WP:CORP. A company known as Wyse Advertising has decided to work for Heinen's and to conduct research for the business. Wyse Advertising. Moreover, as I stated before, Heinen's is listed as a top 100 private Ohio business (it was ranked 51 in 2004) and continues to grow in size and volume. Please consider that Heinen's, although not newsworthy, is indeed notable and competes with many large businesses within its operating area, including Giant Eagle and Tops to name a few. Bluebul1989 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]
"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia... Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." (WP:VAIN) Bluebul1989 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]
As I said before, I am not trying to advertise the store. Yes, I am from Ohio and I in fact live near a Heinen's. Yet I have no bias towards Heinen's and consider it as one of many grocery stores in the Ohio region (these other businesses being recognized in Wikipedia). I feel the chain is an important and influential business in Ohio, and should additionally be recognized as a business competitor. I do not work for Wyse Advertising as I am a 16-year-old junior in highschool. Please consider everything that I have discussed in my posts above. If you still do not believe that Heinen's should be submitted as an entry in Wikipedia, at the very least perhaps it could be grouped with other small, less nationally known businesses (or regional businesses), in a "small and notable businesses" article. This would give an opportunity to many smaller businesses that are important but are left in the dust only because they are not nationally recognized. It would also expand Wikipedia without giving too much attention to each individual business. I know that Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages and I agree that not any ordinary or local business deserves a place in an enyclopedia. My only intent is to enter Heinen's as a rather notable and competitive supermarket chain in Ohio, and to eventually bring light to other small and growing businesses in the United States that deserve to be known and recognized as important parts of the economy. -Author of Heinen's Article Bluebul1989 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]
IMPORTANT Heinen's is located on the Supermarkets in the United States page under the "Smaller Chains" section. It was already on this page before I even created the Heinen's article, signifying that the creator intended to eventually link this to a Wikipedia article specifically about Heinen's. Having a spot on this page, it is obviously a notable small business, and the Heinen's stub should therefore be permitted. View the page here: [27]. I would also like to note the permittance of other smaller, regional chains in this section that are comparable to Heinen's. Many of these chains are as small as Heinen's. Here are some examples: Woodman's Food Market, Westborn Market, Ukrop's Super Market. There are many chains that are smaller and have a lower sales volume than Heinen's that are located on the Supermarkets in the United States page and that have been granted Wikipedia pages. I find it absolutely ridiculous that there is an obvious inconsistency and discrepancy in Wikipedia policy and ruling that I got trapped in the middle of. My article was not judged in the same manner that these other articles were and was immediately proposed for deletion without any consideration. The fact that I had to fight so hard to support something that should not have been debated in the first place is even more upsetting. I urge that this issue be settled immediately and that all "smaller chains" located in the Supermarkets in the United States article be granted a Wikipedia page, as they are certainly important grocery chains. I hope that all future additions of smaller, notable businesses are overlooked with a fairness and consistency that is expected from Wikipedia. A business does not have to be a large, nationally recognized chain, to be considered notable. -Author of Heinen's stub Bluebul1989 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 02:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "e-sports team" (clan). -- Longhair 05:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The team is a pillar of the American Call of Duty competetive scene, which is 2nd only to Counter Strike in size. Also, when it's a publicly run resource, what is the limit to information? None.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Future album with no set release date, and minimal information provided. fuzzy510 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was transwili to wikibooks and delete . --Ezeu 02:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete — No encyclopaedic content, all belongs on Wikibooks. (Suggest moving the interwiki links to Website.) ~ Booya Bazooka 05:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter of a fraternity which makes no verifiable claim to notability. Further, the cited primary source is Self-published by the subject and, accordingly, borders on vanity. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Why not leave the article? Almost every article about a person on wikipedia is a "vanity" article. Most are positive anyway. It is still interesting and I ended up reading it after reading that Ken Lay was a Beta at Missouri from a bio I read on the web. I think it is amazing that the Betas at Mizzou have had men like Sam Walton and Ken Lay (even though he was convicted and that takes the luster away from the association) as members. Shoot, most articles about cities, colleges, etc are postive and sya good things about the places. What else are they going to say? "Smith, Montana...the crappiest little town in the world where all the women are ugly and all the children are stupid." No, they are going to be positive. Big deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.104.148.171 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable director and one of his movies. A future project of his, Lounge Ghost, is already up for deletion; a user there suggested that these two also be nominated, as "Away(A)wake" gets 45 ghits, and the DVD has an Amazon sales ranking of above 54,000. None of the actors or other people involved appear notable either. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. - Longhair 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album. Album name with artist's name registers 7 Ghits. fuzzy510 06:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was KEEP - time to get working on the cleanup, guys! -- 9cds(talk) 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccurate/false content, consensus in discussion page
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album. Total of 50 Ghits, and I can't seem to find anything anywhere outside of Wikipedia that indicates that this album actually exists. fuzzy510 07:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense to the creator of this article, but this is a very non-notable neologism made up by someone. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a place to post one's own made-up words. Prod removed. Delete. Grandmasterka 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with importance. Has been tagged with CSD but declined. Janitorial nomination. kingboyk 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by MONGO. — TheKMantalk 04:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad about nominating any geographical article for afd but in this case this is probably speediable. I can find no evidence of anywhere called "Nakhlah", and the article gives no information at all as to where it is. There are some 30,000 ghits for Nakhlah, because it's commonly used as part of place names, such as `Izbat Hanna Nakhlah, `Uwaynat Umm an Nakhlah, and Kafr Nakhlah. Nothing that seems to tie in with this stub, though. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic content and writing, delete--Peta 07:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Small community group with no notability demonstrated, delete--Peta 08:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to delete. -- 9cds(talk) 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself asserts why it should be deleted - recently-announced album for which nothing is known, including a release date. fuzzy510 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although there will no doubt soon be enough information to warrant an article. J Milburn 12:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
President of redlink companies. Doesn't appear to be notable. Janitorial nomination. kingboyk 08:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review of a non notable POV essay Nuttah68 08:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per nom. --TorriTorri 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Album was never released, and apparently there are no plans to ever do so. All information in the article is in Smile Empty Soul's article already, making a merge unnecessary. fuzzy510 08:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was MERGE with Martin Luther. -- 9cds(talk) 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Luther = the essence of notability. His last descendant? Seems nn to me. Delete. kingboyk 08:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a future album which has no set release date at this time. fuzzy510 08:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. kingboyk 09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed notability as a model but I am unable to find any evidence that she even exists. I think that is she had "appeared on such magazines as playboy and Ralph, and also modelled for such brands as ralph lauren" there would be some note of her somewhere. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep who cares if your want your name on her let it be i mean if it was really important it would be knowen but i mean who cheaks on on this stuff anyway it doesn't matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akalindsay (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exhibition by mostly redlink artists. 2nd nom, janitorial action. kingboyk 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Disregarding from comments such as "how is being a professional wrestler notable" and the like.--Ezeu 02:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Person does not meet notability requirements
↪Lakes (Talk) 08:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of Visions (album), which is the more complete of the two articles. fuzzy510 09:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by RasputinAXP. — TheKMantalk 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy with the reason vanity and not notable. No hits on Google. Conscious 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was prodded by two different anons. User:68.193.96.236 listed the afd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 30, but, obviously, could not create this page. I have replaced the prod with an afd tag and made the afd page as a public service. I have no vote. BigDT 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. The term "Vanity" seems very innapropriate, in that the motivation for posting the Maximum Cultural Development (MCD) article is rooted in an appreciation for mankinds ability to adapt to his/her environment.
Premises: All things enduring move through (4) progressive phases... These four (4) phases are: development, establishment, maintenance, and refinement...
Almost everything we see around us is at different stages in this process. Understanding this basic, universal concept empowers the knower with the ability to successfully architect positive change. This process also includes ourselves as people. What phase are we oriented towards as individuals, and/or as a group of people? What phase does your personal every day life reflect?
Though we as individuals come and go, we have the blessed opportunity of leaving behind us things that endure for those to come after us, our children... For our young ones to survive and thrive with dignity, it is up to each and every one of us to contribute in some way to the heritage, legacy, and culture that will be looked upon by those of us to come.
The concept of Culture, when fully understood is a very powerful one... It should be noted that even an elaborate inventory of the parts and traits of a culture cannot adequately characterize it. Cultures have organization as well as content. Emphasis on some features as opposed others and the total interrelation of the isolable parts has much to do with the distinctive properties of a culture, in addition to the way they work together as a system. Many definitions have been submitted by scholars from many countries, from all fields of social and biological science and the humanities and in aggregate form the foundational basis for this article. Those herein are contemporary since this is the focus of the topic.
Culture: is the complex system of meaning and behavior that defines the way of life for a given group or society. It includes beliefs, values, knowledge, art, morals, laws, habits, language, and dress. Culture includes ways of thinking as well as patterns of behavior. Observing culture involves studying what people think, how they interact, and the objects they make and use.
The second emphasizes culture as a comprehensive totality and enumerates aspects of culture content. Franz Boas: “Culture embraces all the manifestations of social habits of a community, the reactions of the individual as affected by the habits of the group in which he/she lives, and the products of human activities as determined by these habits.” The third is built on the feature of social inheritance. Ralph Linton: “As a general term, culture means the total social heredity of man-kind, while as a specific term, a culture means a particular strain of social heredity.”
The fourth emphasizes culture as a way of life, a design for living. Paul Sears: “The way in which the people in any group do things, make and use tools, get along with one another and with other groups, the words they use and the way they use them to express thoughts, and the thoughts they think...”
The fifth is psychological in the sense that processes such as adjustment, learning, and habit are single out. Culture as a problem-solving device is stressed. Ralph Piddington: “The culture of a people may be defined as the sum total of the material and intellectual equipment whereby they satisfy their biological and social needs and adapt themselves to their environment.”
The sixth identifies as central the patterning or organization of culture, and its systemic quality. John Gillin: “Culture consists of patterned and functionally interrelated customs common to specifiable human beings composing specifiable social groups or categories.” The seventh and final definition used here focuses on culture as an accumulated product of group life. Kimball Young: “A precipitate of man’s social life.”
Wikipedia itself comfortably falls within the MCD framework with a stated mission of providing free and open access to knowledge resources (assets) for all... Its also reflects adherence to the above stated four phase process.
Wikipedia strays from the process, however, through its rampant merging of vaild, free-standing, concepts (articles) which represent Reusable Learning Assets (RLAs). A classic manifestation of european hegemony...
Maximum Cultural Development warrants that: "We must be producers of culture, not passive consumers of it. Cultural development must be intentional and proactive, focused on clear and valid goals with a concrete vision of how to attain them. We are inundated by language, symbols, ideas, and technology, none of which is neutral. We must therefore define where we stand with regard to them and adopt appropriate intellectual and behavioral responses, if we are to be champions and not victims."
May we all be blessed with deeper understanding. Thank you for allowing me to share... Marcus William Tremble--Codestream 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. kingboyk 09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, questionable notability. kingboyk 10:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Yanksox 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One co-writing credit on a moderately successful film. I think not notable. kingboyk 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete by DaGizza. Metros232 13:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, personal opinion, essay... Whatever you want to call it, it's not encyclopedic content. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this lying around, and it's just an incomplete list of people "...who have recorded for Columbia Records" - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Abstain from voting. — FireFox 10:10, 30 May '06 10:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be any more notable than the average professor. Another janitorial nom as I plough through the "importance"-tagged articles. kingboyk 10:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per A7 by User:DaGizza. --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant vanity. Forbsey 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rather small chat site. No claim per WP:WEB. Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Film is only in development. Many films are but never make it to screen Pally01 11:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. WP:AUTO, non-notable entrepreneur. Note that User:Codestream, the main editor of this page, is likely Marcus Tremble himself: [31]. Note that this article also has no content apart from the external link to the DEMRI Portal project, a project at opencourse.org, not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia... other than that link, this is just a "list of interests." Also, note that User:Codestream points here. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 12:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible vanity page in the manspace. Mostly Rainy 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to House (TV series). Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, this article is a list of random facts, which would be better served on the [[House (TV series}]] page
Crazynas 12:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep - Nominator Withdraws Computerjoe's talk 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable part of London Transport Computerjoe's talk 12:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor league player. U.S. Basketballers are generally notable if they've played in the NBA or had a notable college career. This one had neither. He plays for the Newark Express, a minor league team. Lots of teams are listed here American Basketball Association (21st century) but far as I could tell none of them have player bios, unless, of course, they had previously played in the NBA. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was previously deleted by PROD (I was the deleting admin, but not the tagging editor). This is a verbatim reappearance. I cannot verify the existence of this genetically-impossible porn performer from IMDb (the top find isn't him), or from Google. This makes the so-called facts in the article probably unverifiable, apart from the fact that they admit to being impossible. The article also appears to imply original research. It seems likely that this person either does not exist, or is a teenager with an inflated sense of importance, or is so non-notable he is off the bottom of everyone's charts or that this is actually a veiled attack page. In any case, it should go. -Splashtalk 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the value in listing an individual online video unless it has particular global interest dvc214 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article provide factual basis for an incident which is off interest to netizen, it collates with the increasing trend of Singaporean seeking alternative source of information from the internet, instead of relying on a government controlled mainstream media, which is often biased and selective in its reporting. Hence it should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SixSigma (talk • contribs)
What about the hong kong bus uncle then? Why is it ok to have it online but not this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.80.34 (talk • contribs)
There are many of such cases (cat fights, verbal abuses, vandalism) in Singapore since independence. What's different now is that these incidence can now be filmed and publish by anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark limkk (talk • contribs)
No. Lift Auntie and Bus Uncle are stranger to each other. One is in Hong Kong one is in Singapore. I suggest they both falls under the title: "Human Rage"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark limkk (talk • contribs)
I think this can be filed under Citizen journalism or Internet Vigilantism— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.116.153 (talk • contribs)
It is being tommorrowed http://tomorrow.sg/trackback/url/4626
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement masquerading as article. Link to website contains what looks like a tracking ID. Fails WP:WEB - no google hits. Mr Stephen 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Deprodded by anonymous contributor. Accurizer 13:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was KEEP -- 9cds(talk) 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, NPOV, all-but orphanned, borders on prophecy... you can throw the book at it! Happy-melon 13:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. Yanksox 01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a hoax or an unknown amateur artist; there are only two wiki-independent hits in Google ([32]); links in the article mostly lead nowhere or to general art sites without mentions about Velasco; therefore AfD per WP:BIO Ioannes Pragensis 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts.Tyrenius 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was. already deleted. Userfied to User:Kshitizsaxena. --Ezeu 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
spam, advertising, no useful content, not even the suggestion of notability, maybe even a dash of vanity - that's for others to decide. Get rid of it! Happy-melon 14:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus delete. -Ezeu 03:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable "studios" and bordering on vanity. It "may grow in notability"[38] says the author of the article and founder of CM Studios. It *may* be an article to have in the future then. As for now, I don't think so -- Equendil 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit. Well, I thought they were good films... Perhaps we could hit Hollywood one day, if only you people would give us a chance. And about "it may grow in notability"- having it on Wikipedia is just another way to make it more notable.TheVortex
Well then, please recommend me another site where I can publish my so-called 'advertisements'. Thanks for your time, I'll just get my coat and go. TheVortex
That's true, but there's more chance of being noticed by the public on a site like Wikipedia (as you have just proven) than there is on, say, geocities or myspace. TheVortex 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh forget it, I'll just go. There's no point in fighting the system. Allow me to copy and paste everything I've written in the article into another website, and I'll be off. Now, how do I delete my account...? TheVortex 16:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I guess I'll vanish. I'd stick around to delete my article, but I'm a busy guy and I've got movies to make. Peace out. TheVortex 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started an argument? Cool.
Oh, and BrandNew21 and 72.229.107.247, thanks for agreeing to keep this article. You guys rule. As for Fan1967, your line about 'This looks a lot like a duplicate vote, in that the user page for72.229.107.247 was edited by BrandNew21, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to suspect they're the same person' really doesn't seem neccessary. If you felt that my article really needed to be deleted that badly, you wouldn't need to say desperate stuff like 'Ooh, I think that's a duplicate vote'. No offence or anything. And about Google search- I can't work out how to get my website into Google. Should it get indexed automatically?TheVortex 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well if it's routine in AfD discussions, then I guess you should point out duplicate voters. No problem. TheVortex 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he or she does make a valid argument. TheVortex 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant article, since it's already listed here --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable original research essay on witches sabbat. Doesn't actually say what 'hexentanz' is. Delete ::Supergolden:: 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. 1,000 Ghits without middle initial, and 17,000 Ghits with. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article really tries to cover two subjects. One is the band which I don't think is notable (WP:MUSIC). The second is a reference to smoking ban laws in Oklahoma. I can't seem to find any reference to this term and I've never heard the term used (so it's also NN). Ash Lux (talk | Contribs) 14:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 (note: the article does not meet WP:CSD#A2). Kusma (討論) 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure vanity, user added self. 17 year old football player and author. already userfied. Article is in Serbo-Croatian, as best as myself and WP:PNT people could tell. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable country club, golf course, etc. Delete ::Supergolden:: 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Future TV show. WP:NOT crystal ball. Delete ::Supergolden:: 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Furry fandom. --Ezeu 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this carefully. At first glance, this seems valid, but I assure you the topic matter of furries and furry fans is not my motivation for this nomination. I have a few, please react to these arguments in your votes:
1.Unverifiable-- (Wikipedia policy requires all articles be verifiable) Furries are very verifiable and notable, and they have their own description at several wikipedia pages, such as Furry fandom and others. I argue that any information on the term furry lifestyler is unverifiable: Zero hits on LexisNexis and Google News (news search engines with archives of two years) for "furry lifestyler" Zero hits on Jstor search
I have called for and argued for verifiable sources on this page since this January.
2.Original Research- (Wikipedia policy requires that pages not be original research) No original research states "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Since are no sources, I don't think I need to argue this point too much. There is the self published essay, but it isn't "adhered to" since it's info is used to define a term it doesn't ever use, "furry lifestyler" or even "lifestyle." Use of published primary sources is okay, use of unpublished primary sources, forums or newsgroups before a reputable news agency has made light of them, is against policy. People who call themselves furry lifestylers have edited this page, however"policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable." And I believe I have established that this article is unverifiable.
3.Non-notable(which I know is a suggestion, not a policy for deletion)-- 366 hits on google for "furry lifestyler" in quotes. This page is, on close inspection, an attempt to describe and define posters to the furry lifestyler newsgroup. People on the talk page have described it as a sort of "everything else" newsgroup where furry fans did not discuss furry art, but other things. I can only speculate, since I have found no documentation or reliable definition of furry lifestylers. Whether or not it is a clearly defined term in real life that could have a coherent and true article written about it is questionable, but somewhat irrelevant since I believe I have proven such an article would be in violation of wikipedia policy on several points.Articles such as this are welcome at places like wikiinfo, but are put here because of the trust and popularity of wikipedia, which is of course based in the policies that are against this article. Lotusduck 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy says it's the right way to go. If you don't like wikipedia policies you don't have to contribute here. "Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace" and one of those policies is verifiability. Also, your chronology is off, a page should not be created and wait until it has been in a published source that can back up that content. That's after the fact justified original research. Another "not" entry, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are not meant to put up what we do not know is verifiable because we think some newspaper will back up our content or should, at some point in the future. So help me out here: What's your justification for a merge or keep? Lotusduck 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki article is about defining "furry lifestylers" as 25 different things, fans or fursuiters or people that don't want to be called fans or fursuiters. I'm hard pressed to think that the article is definitively, or clearly about anything at all. Nice personal attack on me though.Lotusduck 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn high school student production, episodes available on YouTube. I deprodded and moved here, because the article is in quite good shape for this kind of article, and I feel we owe the creator a debate. Still, this doesn't seem to be important enough for wikipedia. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. default to keep. --Ezeu 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is not a "proposed" character, it has been confirmed that she will appear in the show. At WP:WPEE we take great pride in our articles relating to EastEnders, and have many articles for upcoming characters, who are related to current events. This character will be related to existing characters, which on it's own is a point of interest. The article is also linked to from 14 other articles, proving its notability. This should not be deleted, and, to be frank, I think the nominator is wasting their time, as I'm sure my fellow participants in WP:WPEE will also vote to keep this article going. Trampikey 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if this is notable or not. It claims to be a satirical magazine published in Germany with a circulation of 12,000. I can't find a listing in Ulrich's or a web site. It has a listing on the german wikipedia [51] which seems to have the same info as here. Seems to fail verifiability and notability, at least on the English-speaking wikipedia, although I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Thatcher131 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. We can't have information for every time an episode of The Simpsons has been aired in every country of the world. Another thing is that the user who created this article is probably not going to finish it being blocked indefinitely. --Maitch 16:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent nn porn actress, 11 movies listed at iMDB. Doesn't meet the criteria set for notable pron actors/actresses Wildthing61476 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable radio personality. "Glenn Curtiss" "Love Doctors" turns up 14 Google hits [52] Very few of them are not wiki related. Metros232 17:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These characters each have their own articles already, this would be better as a category. Also, the content of the article is rather FAQy. WikidSmaht (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
superfluous areacruft... an entry for every postcode in the world would be absurd Usrnme h8er 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web site, notability not explained per WP:WEB (or should it be WP:CORP?). No alexa rank. Weregerbil 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is some sort of variation on Frisbee. A google search [54] revealed only 31 hits, most of which were from sites that mirror our content in one way or another. I don't see any reliable sources or anything that establishes notability. --Hetar 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK here... move Guts Frisbee to Team Guts, a more established name for the game discussed in the article; delete Flutterguts as a failed attempt at disambiguation; merge Flutter Frisbee into Team Guts under a subheading of "Variants of Team Guts". What does the Wham-O site say about these? That's how I learned about Team Guts decades ago: literature from Wham-O. B.Wind 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard the name Team Guts, and can find no reference to that name on the World Flying Disk Federation website, or any other for that matter. It also fails to accurately describe it, as the WFDF rules for guts allow 1-5 players per side [61]. It would be better to alter the article to make note of the variable number of players than to create separate articles just to make a distinction based on the number of players. Also, Wham-O currently has no information on guts that I could find, and it's publications are not as authorative as the WFDF. --Superflyguy 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and fix the number of players in the Guts Frisbee article, then move Flutter Frisbee to Flutterguts and mark it as a possible merge to a subsection of Guts Frisbee, and we'll go frum there.--Superflyguy 1:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is original research. No sources are given for majority of claims. Those which are mentioned are either non-neutral ("Right to Life Michigan") or hopelessly vague ("several prominent Catholic newspapers"). Whole quotation of vaccine package inserts at end of article may constitute copyright violation, and, itself, is unencyclopaedic. Severa (!!!) 18:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page, very weak WP:MUSIC candidate. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Beaux-Arts is not an established architectural genre as far as I know, making this article break WP:NOR Equendil 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Make sure to check Talk:New Beaux-Arts architecture, where the author is explaining himself. Equendil 17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This dicdef was transwikied, tagged for speedy deletion by me (incorrectly, I might add -- I now prod transwikied dicdefs), deleted, then recreated and retagged for transwikification. Since I was supposed to prod it and the article was recreated (constituting a contest of the prod, I suppose), I list it here, even though I strongly resent having to do it. TheProject 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a dictionary entry and does not contain any information not already listed in the Code duello article. Ladlergo 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep;nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod disupted on talk page. This is a non-notable "meme" (I counted 12 Google hits) centered around a buyer's revenge story. While some of these stories achieve sufficient notability by virtue of their creativity and execution (i.e., "P-P-P-Powerbook" and "scam the 411 scammer" stories), there's nothing particularly notable about this one; in fact, it's little more than an attack of the seller via dissemination of personal information. It seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to further promote a short-lived blog subject that is losing steam. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just one last point - I just tried entering the search words Amir, laptop and eBay. This got almost 25,000 hits, and from this entry you can see how well represented this story is on the internet. Blaise Joshua 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator I'm not against adjournment, given that the story appears to be receiving much more media attention than I initially thought. While I'm against this sort of thing in principle (we're only getting one side of the story, and the seller has been "convicted" without a trial), I can't deny the notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it
Perhaps the article needs updating, namely, by naming the disgruntled buyer, Thomas Sawyer, 23, Exeter. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=409510&in_page_id=2
This article should be kept. This has been an internet phenomenon. It would be a bit like removing an article about the launch of the Ipod. The subject matter is of less importance than the event itself in my opinion... Keep it.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be about a small web community based on Invisionfree forums. Their claim to fame appears to be a mention on a website with an Alexa ranking of 6.2M. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! Im going to assume you will revert this as you have everything else, if you are fair and just you will not revert this, and as for evidence i think its only fair ill screen shot this all. Swuk6 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is my belief that high school track teams (all sports for that matter) are not notable and do not deserve their own articles. But I don't know if my belief reflects the rest of the community, so I'm bringing it here instead of a prod. Metros232 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Categorize (added to my todo list).--Ezeu 04:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. Computerjoe's talk 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears not only to be an advertisement, but a C&P CV as well. The accompanied image had no source. I place it here mainly becase it may be cleanup-worthy if notable. Abstain - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. AndyZ 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes a non-notable, non-existant band and includes various phrases of vanity such as, " Each member has their own magical musical powers, which they use to fight evil." and "They have been compared to a mixture of bands like Weezer, The Strokes, The Unicorns, and Van Halen." Overall, this article is poorly written and describes a non-notable fake band, with NO hits when performing a google or yahoo search. Thetruthbelow (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previously deleted vanity article. 2nd nomination. Article is admittedly written by the company's owner (see previous AfD discussion below), and was deleted under AfD along with several other related articles by the same author (see here [74]) --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Kaldari's prod:
I do believe that there may be some encyclopedic content which can be discussed here, if appropriate sources can be found, but this wall of text isn't it. Delete. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mostly Rainy 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Prod reason was "blatant advertising." I agree, delete. Mangojuicetalk 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough information about this to have its own article, the little information that can be written about this is on the Counter-strike page. Andeh 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "prod" was deleted without explanation. -- SGBailey 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 09:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sutable for Wikipedia because it is an in-universe description of obscure aspects of a comic. Gerry Ashton 19:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article describes a non-notable author with No web hits. Also, this article is full of fake, and and possibly offensive book titles and play titles such as "Yoohoo Shelia", "A Warm Lesbian Summer Night" and "Living With Herpes." Also, there is a sentence of pure vanity that goes, "She married true crime author Pier Dominguez on March 9, 2003. He is a student at NYU film school and this has caused stress to their relationship, but they are still hanging in there after 3 beautiful years!" Thetruthbelow (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP--I know Bertha personally and she did write those plays and the self help book is a big hit locally, and also she is married to a famous author and is a feminist activist at Duke University and has been intimately involved with the rape scandal there. You might not like the way the article was written, yes, I agree, but modify.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a non-notable advert. TheProject 21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete, does not assert notability. Prodego talk 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremly non-notable and vague, with no sources, external links, or citations. Thetruthbelow (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical/Vanity Page
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod that was transwikied to wiktionary. Anti-deletion argument on article talk page. TheProject 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable student club sport. UCLA's men's basketball team doesn't even have it's own stand-alone article and they have a very storied history. Also vanity, the author is one of the athletes mentioned in the article. Metros232 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spinolio started the process of the AFD - I noticed the redlink and am finishing it off as a public service. His comments were, "(Anti-Zombie Attack Squad - WP: Web, non-notable. Wikipedia probably isn't the place for a poorly-written description of a Myspace group.)" BigDT 23:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect to As Cruel as School Children Computerjoe's talk 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate entry and "as" is not capitalized -Myxomatosis 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need an entire page devoted to a cat character that had about three minutes of screen time in a spoof film? R.E. Freak 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by Moriori. — TheKMantalk 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not significant Leoniceno 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge/redirect to suicide bombing. --Ezeu 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism Homey 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. We've got Criticism of Wikipedia already, don't we? - Mailer Diablo 22:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently nn website, does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria. -- Karada 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005' [MySQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver][mysqld-4.0.27-max-log]MySQL client run out of memory /antiwiki/incfile/log/log.asp, line 19
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another webpage for one of the thousands of text-based games available. This one claims to have an active player base of around 500, which is pretty small. Their website has an Alexa rank of 3,259,447 and a Google search [78] gives only 51 results. As of last week they were ranked 192 at Top Web Games (which means they had a total of 4 votes). Because of a complete lack of reliable sources and notability, I am recommending delete. --Hetar 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Redirect to the parent company article, Build-A-Bear Workshop. — TheKMantalk 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link to small commercial venture, not notable, little more than an advertisement or directory listing. Marysunshine 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I should have hovered over the link. Yanksox 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:Fang Aili - see [79]. BigDT 04:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A direct (although slightly reshuffled) word-for-word copy of Page 62 of the most recent Codex: Imperail Guard (Chambers, Andy (2003). Warhammer 40,000 Codex: Imperial Guard (4th Edition ed.). Nottingham: Games Workshop. ISBN 1841544108. ((cite book))
: |edition=
has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)). Also, a list of slang and terminology, which is inadvised per WP:NOT a dictionary. -- saberwyn 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is from sqrlaway. Really sorry for all the mess- i went in and deleted the article. I feel like a real jerk right now. Apologies all around, I should have thought about what I was doing. Sqrlaway 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this television show is actually happening. Disney's own site doesn't have any information of it. The little information that is on this article is a copy of the single line in the IMDB profile. Metros232 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, seems to be a promotion. There is no solid information and extremly messy with vanity, Delete Yanksox 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect, cheap and easy. Mailer Diablo 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no need to split this topic from the Power-on self-test article, and there's nothing left to merge. Vossanova o< 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]