< November 2 | November 4 > |
---|
The result was delete. Dakota 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Wiki adminers have determined precedent for like sporting clubs, any retort I can offer appears to be a waste of time. However, a couple for your consideration...
Links to the area (Doncaster or East Doncaster) discuss schools, community groups & sporting clubs based throughout the area. Is it not logical for these clubs to then have a wiki presence??
The club has a significant history in the area, which has been documented extensively, and is currently being prepared for release in book format.
The club effects hundreds of individuals & families on a weekly basis.
I don't see the point in ignoring sporting associations that play a prominent part in a local community, and limiting a wiki presence to those that reach a specific "grade". It's easy to state that a club is "Not notable", but by whose reckoning does this apply??
Other than following wiki guideliness that have already been established, I don't think the arguments noted for deletion so far, are at all contructive.
Kind regards, Heater
The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Associate professor; the article makes strong claims of notability which I'm unable to confirm. An ISI citation search puts his most-cited paper at 15 citations. Everything else is in the single digits. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy deletion candidate. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claim to notability is was the first man in all South America who held in 1890 the Sabbath of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and kept the Sabbath day holy as the church teaches. I don't know if that is notable enough or even verifiable; searches forReinhardt or Reynaldo yield mostly WP mirrors. ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whay dont you go to the church history in south america and check it for yourselves insteat of automaticly delete what you guess... you fools.!!
The result was Speedy userfy, a brief Google indicates that poethical is associated with Earwood, as if it were ever in doubt. Guy 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a self-published nn poet. "Timothy Earwood" results in fewer than 30 unique ghits. Likely runs against WP:VAIN: ten of first editor Poethical's 15 Wikipedia contributions have concerned Timothy Earwood. Four of the remaining five contributions have been to Peter Urban and Goju-Ryu, two interestes identified in the article. Victoriagirl 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Alex (Talk) 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN hockey player, fails sportspeople guidelines set in WP:BIO, precedent set with discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovica Zelenbaba Tony fanta 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also former/current Saginaw Spirit players that do not meet WP:BIO and have not been drafted by the NHL or show any notability (although being drafted isn't an instant factor of notability either, I just want to bundle those of similar ilk, others can check the list later):
|
|
|
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged db-empty but does not really apply to list articles. South Africa is rather a large country and has more than a few schools... Guy 00:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as G1 and A7. Guy 10:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what event this is describing, but it appears to be some local school event and surely is not notable. Calliopejen 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond this request, I will address the specific reasons for recommending deletion. Cbrown1023’s request for a total-rewrite in which the author can explain the subject better is well received. The idea was for one participant to provide the skeleton of the article such that various other participants could more readily add to the substance of the article and clarify it. However, I respect the need to put a limit on such efforts, given the prevalence of lazy communities that start projects on the Wikipedia and are not committed to maintaining them. This is why I recommend the 30 day moratorium on the discussion about whether or not the article should be deleted. If after 30 days the article is not fleshed out, then I too will recommend deletion. With regard to Masamage’s request to send the article to WP:BJAODN, this, again, might seem appropriate to those who do not, for obvious reasons, understand the article, but again I urge a 30 day period during which the article may be fleshed out by the entire Festival community. This article was created in order that those who participated would have an easier time adding content. Although the wiki format is easy to use, if there is an article already created then it is easier to edit. OfficeGirl suggests what may seem like the most appropriate critique of the article with the suggestion that it violates WP:NFT. I was concerned about this particular guideline myself while creating the article and this is why I created the history sub-heading. I do not think that Festival is a violation of these guidelines, and I know several other Festival participants who have read the guidelines themselves and still agree. Furthermore, because I did not want to waste the time of the Wikipedia community, I requested assurance of those Festival participants in the creation of the article prior to their participation in the creation of this article. I have been assured by several participants that, if the article itself were created, they would be happy to add content in order to clarify it. For this reason I request a 30 day period during which Festival participants are allowed to contribute to the article prior to its consideration for deletion. There were several complaints about the lack of sources. I feel very redundant at this point in my request, but I think it best to allow a 30 period in order to list the sources. This is, perhaps, the most tedious task, although one of the more important, or any wikipedian and at times takes more than six hours to perform if it is do be done correctly. Having just read the the wikipedia guidline on verifiability I can assure the Wikipedia editors, whose commitment to the integrity of this project is evident by the number who have turned out to pass judgment on this single article, that two legitimate sources have published articles about Festival and one is in the works, and that if the 30 day wait period is suggested that these publications will be linked to the website. We will verify it, although we do appreciatability Metropolitan90’s link to the page with the verifiability criteria. The fact that Mikeblas cannot find the soundtrack on Allmusic or Amazon seems entirely irrelevant, and the suggestion that this is “Something made up at break one day” is both insulting and unsupported. I take great offense that the conclusions jumped to by this particular Wikipedia-editor. I will assume for the time being that they have been reached by the lack of respect for the wikipedia project that Mikeblas has encountered in the past and a general embitterment to those whose actions undermine the integrity of the project. Consequently I will not make further comment on this ill founded suggestion to delete the article. • I cannot understand Arbusto’s request to delete (without bubbles) unless it is just a suggestion in an overall vote. If so, the vote is respected. If ‘(without bubbles)’ is supposed to provide some reason for this vote, I am left in a state this perplexing by another’s reasoning since I stopped teaching introductory logic courses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festwoman (talk • contribs)
The result was speedy delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fansite for The Sims. The prod was contested a while back but this one could almost be speedied under A7. Note that the article has been built entirely by anonymous IPs and VampireX13 (talk · contribs). Perhaps not unrelated is the fact that one of the main moderators of the website is a user called Vampire. In any case, the content is mostly unverifiable and most clearly of no encyclopedic value. Pascal.Tesson 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book published by vanity press AuthorHouse. "In the Twinkle of an Eye" "Linda Sterling" produces 11 unique Google hits. The book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 356,183. -Elmer Clark 05:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN hockey player, fails sportspeople guidelines set in WP:BIO, precedent set with discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovica Zelenbaba Tony fanta 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also former/current Plymouth Whalers players that do not meet WP:BIO and have not been drafted by the NHL or show any notability:
Clarification: the guideline at WP:BIO states Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. So for hockey players, they are wiki notable if they have played professionally. Of course there are always exceptions like hot prospects (Jordan Staal, Phil Kessel, etc)... ccwaters 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
With the OHL being considered a professional league, it would mean that all players could be up. Don't get me wrong, I don't really consider there to be entirely bright hockey futures for all of them, but I can promise that at least 4 will be playing in higher leagues in the next 3 years, at least one of them next year. 35.11.236.45 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Update: upon further research into the matter, I would make a suggestion as to players to save, from this list, as long other OHL teams are given similar chances to get their prospects "wikiworthy". I would suggest leaving Steve Ward, Andrew Fournier, Vern Cooper, and A.J. Jenks. Among players in the list above, there may be fringe NHL draft picks, but the four I have mentioned will move on. 35.11.236.45 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a self-published non-notable writer in clear violation with WP:COI guidelines. Original editor Mitchwaldman has contributed to this article exclusively. Subject fails WP:BIO Victoriagirl 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, is without context, and violates WP:NPOV. "Miramonte Department of Choral Studies" scores precisely 12 unique Ghits, and "Heritage International Choral Festival" scores 3 unique Ghits. It refers to, and could be a part of, Miramonte High School, but gets no mention whatsoever in latter article, where this article may be suitably be merged in part, if any editor judges content worthy of keeping. Ohconfucius 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who asserted that relaity show contestants are inherently notable. After losing this reality show, this contestant has done nothing more notable than failing to win on the show. Mikeblas 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable community and fails WP:WEB. It is apparently the most well-known community for the Neverwinter Nights game, but this is far from being notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently has an incredibly low Alexa ranking (and has for many years) and very few relevant Google hits. Prod was removed by User:Avraham, saying the community has "hundreds of members" and some screennames of members were used in later games, though this at best is trivia that should be listed on the related game pages.--- RockMFR 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who asserted that "reality contestants are inherently notable". After losing on this game show, this contestant went on to have a couple of bit parts on a soap opera, appearing in only two epsiodes. She is more notable than an extra in a movie. Mikeblas 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all as obvious hoaxes per WP:SNOW and the several pairs of eyes, below. NawlinWiki 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, there was no 2005 FIFA World Cup, info taken from 2002 World Cup, user that create this article talk page shows he has created several other hoaxes. Coasttocoast 03:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating for same reason:
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff, who did so because "reality contestants are inherently notable". This losing contestant has done nothing notable after the show. Has just less than 1000 hits on Google. [4] Mikeblas 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who assert that realtiy show contestants are inherently notable. After losing on the show, this contestant has done some modelling, but nothing that sets her apart from others. About 1600 hits on Google. [5]
The result was delete. Dakota 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not written very well, but I would like it to be improved on, rather than deleted. Jordan Maxwell's work is very important to the 'research community' (aka conspiracy theorists), and he is cited and quoted by many other writers and lecturers, including Michael Tsarion, David Ike and others. To delete his entry would be to start a trend of removing entries for anyone who dares to question the status quo. Just because the complainant hasn't heard of him, doesn't mean that he is not notable.
Unnotable conspriacy theorist with three books "published" from a PO Box in San Diego, California.[6] Fails notability. Arbusto 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete _him_ then that's a good precedent to "nominate and destroy" most of those christian preachers, bible colleges and other such organizations that have cropped up on WP as of late; few of these pass the same litmus test. There is too much of Maxwell's work in circulation for him to be dismissed like that. What's more, and most telling is that Arbustoo chose to forget to mention the many documentaries for television Mr. Maxwell has worked on and at times appeared therein in person as well as the many events Mr. Maxwell has been a featured speaker at many venues and has been invited as a guest to many radio shows such as Art Bell / George Noory's Coast to Coast etc. etc.
Many are available on |http://video.google.com&q=jordan+maxwell :
... ...
Just looking at this website at [[7]] it's therefore not just "three books" "published by a PO Box".
I can imagine his work does not sit well with (christian) religionists and other such related organizations and cults, however as I stated in the beginning, as far as notability is concerned, once you delve into subjects such as secret societies and the inner workings of organized religion then there is no way past Jordan Maxwell. Reader 13:02, 3 November 2006(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.230.65 (talk • contribs)
I think Guy hit it on the head by calling him a self-professed and self-published "expert". --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who commented that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing that set her apart from others in her field. About 700 hits on Google [10]. Mikeblas 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who commented that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. Less than 600 hits on Google [11]. Mikeblas 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable unaccredited "university." I get 2,300 yahoo hits including wikipedia and spam. Should be redirected to the New York Institute of Technology per the more famous program of the accredited school. According to the NY IT article, "the college launched American Open University of NYIT in November 1984." This Virgina unaccredited "school" has nothing to do with the NY accredited program. Arbusto 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 600 hits on Google [14]. Mikeblas 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect to America's Next Top Model. Glen 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 600 hits on Google [15]. Mikeblas 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 1100 hits on Google [17]. Mikeblas 04:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song with no claims of notability. I have tried repeatedly to redirect it to the album page, but the article's creator insists on unredirecting, therefore it's time to get the thing deleted altogether. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded and Prod lifted by creator. I fail to see the point of this list. It is always likely to be incomplete. In my view a category structure would do a better job and be much easier to maintain. Delete. BlueValour 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep; nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non notable middle school. Absolutely nothing sets this one apart from thousands of other middle schools Resolute 04:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*Delete There is nothing notable about this school. It has no well known alumni, nor is it particularly old. It has no succesful sports teams or clubs that have performed at a notable level. The school has recieved no notable awards. JoshuaZ 07:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep The blue ribbon awards are sufficient claim to notability. JoshuaZ 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per Alansohn's research. Turns out this is one of a very small number of schools that is notable. I'll go vandalize and destroy some other article now.... Resolute 01:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned band with no sign of passing WP:MUSIC. Two previous attempt by User:Fan-1967 to speedy it were blocked by suspected sock puppets, Planetispluto and ADE5715 - two first-time editors with no other edits to their name. The band has apparently one self-released album, (no sign on Amazon, and no sign of reviews). They and are scheduled to play their first live gig in their home town at the Thanksgiving break 2006 per their website. 442 unique Ghits for "Stage crew" + celtic, all but about 5 return links for the generic usage of stage crew. Ohconfucius 04:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn - Yomanganitalk 13:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition; recreation of previously deleted article; non-notable term (139 ghits, one of which is my user page where I list pages that I have deleted.) Prod removed. Brianyoumans 05:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. Relatively small Internet forum/website, no assertion of notability outside of its own community. --- RockMFR 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable accreditation mill with no recognition or connection to any respected academic group. Arbusto 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the press coverage that was claimed but never shown. Normally a closer doesn't search, but normally people provide evidence rather than just vague claims of it. On a News search, I get one result and it's a simple mention that isn't very informative. On a regular google search, everything seems to be various random webpages either of credential check sites or other schools / practitioners. Gillian McKeith cites at least 2 articles from newspapers... this article cites nothing, none of the "news coverage" of McKeith mentions this group, let alone gives useful information on it. If anyone wants to present a reliable source on this topic, I'll undelete. W.marsh 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable accreditation mill with no recognition or connection to any respected academic group. Arbusto 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. "Little known fact, the lead singer of Scenegrind Pop-Thrash band "Shovel" was the first man to deny nine eleven actually happened. Oddly enough "Shovel" broke up before 1985." Ha ha ha. NawlinWiki 19:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable or made up musical style. Unsourced, article title gets no google hits outside Wikipedia[18]. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 06:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed prod removed. No verification nor assertion of notability/significance. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 06:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of Creation-evolution controversy, at best would make sense to be a redirect. JoshuaZ 06:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense/obvious hoax. "Several I-131 bombs have been sucessfully tested at the defense contractor NeuroToxin's test pits. At least one has been badly damaged. It is believed that NeuroToxin is covering up these tests to sell the technology to rogue countries such as the DPRK." Give me a freakin' break. NawlinWiki 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. I-131 is a product from a nuclear fission. Its fusion would be a reverse reaction requiring additional energy, not producing it. No ghits on such a novel weapon Alex Bakharev 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7. "As of November 3, 2006, the movement hadn't done anything." Sounds like a failure to assert notability to me. NawlinWiki 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable movement Alex Bakharev 06:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion for a third time. This article seems much more like part of a game guide than an encyclopedia article. The notability of the article isnt asserted in any way. There are no third parties references. I'd propose it be deleted MidgleyDJ 07:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability, lack of relevancy, dubious claim to Dracula lineage (or, in case, one shared with thousands of other people) Dahn 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page makes some very doubtful claims about its subjects achievements. The article claims subject is responsible for significant scientific advances, with no verification - it seems a lot like a hoax. --Swpb 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pure advert created by the inventor of this process - see John Hait who also has this AfD discussion. -- RHaworth 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by Pgk. Whispering 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown and unsigned band with no sign of passing WP:MUSIC. The band has apparently no album, (no sign on Amazon, and no sign of reviews); exactly 5 unique Ghits for "Taxpayer's holiday" + nebraska Ohconfucius 08:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is blatantly self-publicity and seems to being continually altered and updated, quite possibly by the subject themselves. I fail to see how a very minor presenter of a gaming quiz programme primarily on non-terrestrial television is a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This undoubtable falls short of theWP:VAIN criteria.
Any edits and changes which cast doubt on the credance of the entry are immediately reverted with juvenile spin. Wiki is not a CV page for desperate wannabee starlets. This is a serious encyclopedia project and should be treated as such.
Forgive me if I have done this incorrectly. I am relatively new to Wiki, but have become passionate about what it stands for, and find this to be beneath the standards it should rightly quest for.
James — James Leftovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Glen 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-critical advertisement for a book promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories. If the subject is really worth a WP article, it should be rewritten from scratch. Also this is probably a copyvio. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Article name seems a bit nonstandard, suggest reviewing WP:NAME. W.marsh 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Random guy who was injured during a shooting, with no other claim to fame. The incident itself is well covered at Dimebag Darrell. Dtcdthingy 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (it was close to merge but a single merge target hasn't been identified). Yomanganitalk 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some guy whose only reason for being here is that he hates Scientology and has a website which also has an unnecessary Wikipedia article. Crabapplecove 23:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge per Montco, while I'd personally rather have an article about this guy as one more little poke at the scientology asses, he doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. If someone can comb through the google hits on the guy to see if they can get him to meet WP:BIO I'd be more than happy to change this to keep. In any case, his website and he should be in the same article. JoshuaZ 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep or barring that merge due to the regional Emmy mentioned below. JoshuaZ 07:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1, nomination withdrawn and no other deletion opinions present. (Merge is a variant on keep, not on delete.) GRBerry 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
High school. No reliable outside sources listed, and none found by a media search, so apparently non-noteworthy. Article consists of the name, location, and founding date (1997) of the school, and it apparently cannot be expanded beyond perhaps demographic information; that means it's a directory entry. Prod disputed on the grounds that it's a school. Shimeru 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Fukuoka Softbank Hawks. Guy 12:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already exists in more detail under Fukuoka Softbank Hawks Neoyamaneko 10:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable public house Quentin X 10:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was speedily deleted as a non-notable company article, then as a recreation of deleted material. The original author believes that the article is notable enough for inclusion, so I am putting this up on Afd. Tangotango 10:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a book review for a Microsoft Press book. There being no Cliff's Notes for Microsoft books, the contents of the article is pretty much guaranteed to be original research, and in any case there is not much to be said which is not already on the publisher's website. Guy 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A small company, $5m turnover, a couple of hundred Googles only [27], no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, no sources independent of the subject. Guy 15:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A one-paragraph stub on what appears to be a neologism; not much evidence of this definition being used outside of the cited source. Around 500 ghits excluding Wikipedia. Guy 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher's blurb for a management book. Guy 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this is the perfect example of listcruft. Is there an encyclopaedic topic nicknames mentioned by Chris Berman? Doesn't look like it. A list of terms of an arbitrary type uttered by an arbitrarily selected presenter. And guess how many of them are cited? What was that? None at all, you guessed? Well done, bang on the money. Guy 10:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't. --SandyDancer 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, this article's description of this political party makes for good reading, indicating as it does that nobody knows anything about this party apart from rumours and what is on its web site, and they don't trust that:
The size of the party, which you are also trying to make the focus of the discussion, is also beside the point. To warrant an encyclopaedia article, we need more material than just 1 single web site published by the party itself, which is all that is available here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for simply re-hashing a political party's own propaganda. But without any independent sources whatsoever, that is the only thing that an article on this party can ever be."Not much is known about this party, although sources have told us that they stand for a white England. We have also been informed that this party does not agree with Immigration or a multi-cultural society, so it seems this party could be more on the lines of an English BNP. This information however could be incorrect, and we cannot verify this as there is no E-mail address on the web site etc. Anyway, to judge for yourself, visit the link."
The 1 line in the election results table is all that can be found outside of Wikipedia, and is all that should be found inside Wikipedia. Uncle G 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't.`
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In project management, a product is functionally uindistinguishable from a product, whatever Eli Goldratt might say. Guy 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom half is pretty much a copy from IMDB [30], and if he's most famous for a bit part in an unsuccessful TV show, then he fails WP:BIO. SteveLamacq43 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. —Scott5114↗ 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD criterion G10 (attack). I am not sure I can find a version which does not egregiously violate WP:LIVING, but feel free to put one up if you can find it. Guy 12:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been edited many times since it was first created, but has never risen above what appears to malicious attacks on it subject. I have had difficulty in establishing whether Hoogewerf is a notable journalist. Two of the links in the article are to Chinese website which I can't read. Perhaps others will be able to attest to his notability, but so far this article hasn't. Emeraude 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn physician for wrestling promotion. A search for ("Ferdinand Rios" wwe) gets around 800 gits, but most of those are just repostings of stories where he explains the injuries (like "According to WWE physician Dr. Ferdinand Rios, Kennedy required more than 20 stitches to close the wound."). Has appeared briefly on camera a few times, but appears to fail WP:BIO Tony fanta 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was already deleted on February: [35] and the situation has not improved since then. There have been no concrete evidence that the development of this game has begun. Mika1h 12:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was article no longer exists. Housekeeping. -bobby 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this whilst reviewing Special:Contributions/I is leo. It appears to be another hoax from this editor. It cites no sources. AllMusic Guide turns up no album with this title and no artist named "FAL". The title garners the magic one Google Web hit: this very article. Uncle G 12:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for sources and verification since October 14. No sources/references provided. The only place where I could find her name is an ezine: SAWF. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per rewrite. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:AUTO, creator was Laurent Pariente (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I want to reply to Officegirl and MichaelCurtis: First Guitemie Maldonado and i wrote the presentation in my article. To my knowledge I don't see why this article is not encyclopedic. It's a very good introduction about my work which as all visual work is not easy to describe. Second there are a good deal of visual artists in the entire history who have been both tremendous visual artist and exceptional writers. I have myself written numerous articles on my work as well on other artists. Being a visual artist doesn't make me illiterate. Third, again if you consider the work worthwile as Truthbringer seemed to have understoond, you should give it a chance instead of trimming it like a bonzaï (I'm currently working in Japan), and be happy to have one more interesting creator becoming part of Wikipedia. Thanks.
keep Hello, I'm Laurent Pariente and I only put the information I had in hands right now. If you go to my website you would see I have done a lot of personal and creative work so far and all the information I put on Wikipedia is just mine and will grow with time. Deleting my article won't help growing the article. Thanks for your understanding.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable bio Tamer Maged 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only source offered for this article is a book which the editor concerned (User:Burkem) says is unpublished; it is therefore not WP:V verifiable. Many (if not all) of this user's edits rely on genealogical material from discredited sources, and the user has now been blocked. This nomination follows the removal by Burkem of an earlier PROD; see the discussion at User talk:Burkem#Undoing_the_damage, where a major cleanup is underway. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than an advertorial for a candidate in an upcoming municipal election. Does not meet the minimum standards in WP:BIO. Candidates for local office are not notable, and Mr. Seeton does not appear to be notable enough for other reasons to merit an encyclopedia entry. Skeezix1000 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete if anyone needs content from this article for a merge, let me know. W.marsh 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was ((prod))'d as nn-org, but the talk page indicates it survived an AFD. Let's see what the flagpole says now. UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A list, of which two entries are cited (and one more is probably unambiguous given that Roy Orbison's biographers tell the story of the sunglasses). But really, is the topic of people who are ususally seen wearing shades encyclopaedic? If so, is it encyclopaedic enough to support a list? Anyway, what constitutes sunglasses? Any tinted spectacles? If so tha Galaghers are in, but so are half the people who achieved fame in the 70s. In the end I think this is too random a subject. Guy 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Glen 12:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Critical analysis of a running gag from a single Spongebob episode. Useless even as a redirect. Delete. JayMars 15:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was nominated for speedy deletion for a lack of context, but that doesn't apply. The notability of this site is asserted, but not (yet?) referenced. It is pov, promotional, but too soft for spam. Basically, none of the speedy tags apply for this article, so I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was not created to promote the website. I do not have a reason to create a english-language article to promote a greek website. Please do not delete this article. My intentions are to provide a entry about this website to Wikipedia for informational purposes.
The text of the article will be soon updated with more info about paid-sex and information on whore-houses from the ancient times of Greece. Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectoras (talk • contribs)
I think that you should keep the article in order to provide informantion and link source as a guide to paid sex services and, of course, as a complete walkthrough to greek adult life style and market. (Kostas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectoras (talk • contribs)
As above stated from Kostas, this website provides a general walk-through to the visitors coming to Greece. We have seen tons of people visiting the website to find information about Greece. It Wikipedia's purpose is to have useful information, then i think this article is directly related.
Other than that, i will be soon updating this article and provide *complete* information about one of the world's earliers profession (prostitutes), and how that influenced ancient Greece and their people. bourdela.com is the ONLY website related to that. You mentioned some other websites, but i did not understand, please explain. Thanx. Sectoras 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is inaccurate. This comment WAS made by another person, who did not know how to post a comment in here and did post his comment on the bourdela.com article, i just did a copy/paste to include his commment in this history. Sectoras 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revision as of 2006-11-03T12:15:43 - you add the word comments signed (Kostas) Revision as of 2006-11-03T12:21:52 - you add (copy-paste)
I have since amended them to clarify your posts
--ArmadilloFromHell 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As User:SmokeyTheFatCat notes on his userpage. "I have even thought of founding a British Christian Socialist Party". He then creates, a few months later, this article, which asks people to join it. Wikipedia is not a recruiting tool. If I need continue, then I shall note that the only two google hits for the name of the party are his userpage and a reference to an apparently unrelated historic political party in 1837. Furthermore, the party has not (yet) been registered with the Electoral Commission. If this party gets off the ground and we can find secondary sources about it, great, we can have an article about it. But no sources exist at all at present. Morwen - Talk 15:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. No awards, no well-known distributer, and I'm not able to find any stories about this site from independent reliable sources, let alone multiple. The author seems to be asserting its notability on the basis of the number of registered users, which is not a valid criterion. Kafziel Talk 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD. Original PROD reason: "(1) subject of article is non-notable; (2) article is very POV; (3) article seems to basically be a rewrite of the website listed at the bottom and does not otherwise cite any sources". Someone appears to have meant to add this to AfD but didn't complete the process. No opinion. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This artice was speedy deleted under CSD A7. At DRV, the deleting admin consented to a listing at AfD to resolve the question. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - no reason it can't be recreated if reliable sources can be provided. Yomanganitalk 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is for a rumored future episode of Lost (TV series). It contains no referenced information, only unsubstantiated rumors. Violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Milo H Minderbinder 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE into Manhunt, as no objections to this were offered. Herostratus 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability Otto4711 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating these related articles also for failing notability.
The result was speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating deletion discussion page for Barouh Berkovits because there are a lot of people involved in the development of pacemakers and ICDs (Many of whom are more notable than Barouh Berkovits), and they should be mentioned in the history sections of those articles. Ksheka 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creator of article keeps restoring unsourced and off-topic information, but when you remove the cruft, this non-notable article is nothing but a one-sentence stub. "Music of South Florida" hasn't been demonstrated to deserve an article all its own, and the creator seems intent on making this a vanity article that promotes persons, styles, slang, etc. which do not fall under the topic. wikipediatrix 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and apply stub tag. South Florida has made outsized musical contributions (Jimmy Buffett, the Miami Bass sound, hub for latin music to provide a few examples). Thus, there is plenty of good content with which to populate this page. Let's not delete this page, tag it as a stub, and let it achieve its potential. Captaintruth 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was transwiki. W.marsh 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition. Not sure how to transwiki this to Wiktionary, which might accept it. EVula 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm also including Snoofing in this AfD, as it too is a dictionary definition page. EVula 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Snoofing is not just a word it is an encyclopedia article and should remain as it is a robust new concept, that give a supporting verb (doing word) to new events, that have only become available and are doable due to changes in a capitalist society since Adam Smith, Fordism, Taylorism, Thatcherism, Reaganomics, etc. and wireless technology (WiFi). Snoofing is a process, outcome and product of changing and evolving capitalism and technology based society, which is global. This single word sums up a culture of change and is common to all cultures and societies, which move in a capitalist and technological state of progress.
Luddites would do no “Snoofing” as they would not use WiFi or aspire to capitalist and technological change as a snoof. (Snoof (Selfish New Object Orientated Flirtation) (Noun) to analyse resources and be questioning with the objective of critical evaluation and / or personal gain (Noun) one who snoofs For example Consultants’ may use Snoofing techniques to find out information which may be used against Luddite thinking for critical evaluation and gain of the Consultant. Therefore, this is a concept and not a mere dictionary word.
This Snoofing concept is commonly regarded as a correct reflection of a changing society, which has been summed up in a single word. Therefore the concept of Snoofing has a rightful life outside of a dictionary as it is a growing culture, of greed, envy and critical review, which has been defined in a word for a changing society. The Snoofing concept is defined in the Urban Dictionary. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snoofing
Rather than mark for deletion Snoofing should be expanded and deeper embedded in other concepts of Economics and Technology that reflect our changing societies.
The result was Speedy Keep. Per my comments below, clearly passes WP:Bio. -bobby 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable individual who doesn't meet WP:BIO or notablity guidelines WP:NN. Article does not provide evidence of notability other than that she is a sitting president's daughter. That, however does not make her encyclopedic or even make her merit her own article Strothra 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could have probably been speedied, but I'm being generous and reading the claim of having a "discography" as an assertion of notability and bringing it here. No signs of meeting WP:MUSIC, no sources, no label, only link is a myspace page. ergot 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. I didn't delete the page, but it's gone now so I'm closing the discussion. -bobby 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a blog...or social networking site." Nor is it a place to complain about net drama from them, or advertise for another one. mordicai. 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This person is not notable EMS | Talk 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Eagle 101. —Cryptic 10:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is unreferenced, doesn't give notability, reads like an ad. If there's material for a valid article then it's not in this page. ben 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of verifiable links for this and seems hardly notable. The only really notable link is the actual article. Seems a vanity article. Spartaz 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant product promotion. Author rmvd my prod tag. Two sentences in NYT could be devoted to any kind of oddball product. Remember Sea Monkey ads? This is similar, but far more expensive. Also see Photoshopped picture in history of this "article." Ling.Nut 12:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for offending the rules of Wikipedia, but I have nothing to do with the company that creates the product and do not intend on advertising it.Head-doctor 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is about a song that is not notable (not even a single) off of Tool's record 10,000 Days. It was clearly made in an effort to subvert the page 10,000 Days (Wings Pt 2), which is the actual title of the song, and which currently redirects to the album's main page. I tried to send the article through the proposed deletion process, but the prod tag was removed by an anonymous user with no justification whatsoever. King Bee 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be covered by any independent reliable sources. Looks like it fails WP:V/WP:RS. Article editors have failed to provide any useful sourcing despite a couple editors requests. Wickethewok 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted, CSD:A1. --MCB 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an orphan, as well as having no content and being unotable NauticaShades 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Yanksox 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Nothing particularly notable about this school. No notable alumni. No athletes of clubs performing at a national level. No other claims that assert notability. JoshuaZ 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per presence of notable alumni that I failed to notice. JoshuaZ 02:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) changing back to delete per GRBerry's argument below. Unless the article can be sourced, notability of alumns isn't relevant. JoshuaZ 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Ok, back to keep since the items about the alumni are verifiable so it can stay as a stub with that for now. JoshuaZ 05:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
***Comment Yes I know, by my personal notability criteria can't overide WP:V. In the words of Jimbo "WP:V is non-negotiable" If we can't get enough to verify anything then we can't do much. JoshuaZ 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I changed my mind again.JoshuaZ 05:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del nonnotable coinage of yet another phobias, circulating in the web in various pohobia lists without a single reputable reference, with notable exception of unscrupulous psychiatric websites that will heal you from any phobia (including Russophobia and prostitutephobia), and they keep inventing names to increase number of website hits. See -phob-#Phobia lists. `'mikkanarxi 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. W.marsh 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malls aren't automatically notable, and the article doesn't seem to assert this one's notability. Also, less than 2000 ghits. It has been prodded and deprodded. Picaroon9288 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - arguments that he fails WP:BIO haven't been countered. Yomanganitalk 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
disputed PROD for NN-youtube 'celebrity' delete DesertSky85451 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Giving this article the benefit of the doubt... but if references can't be found by a third afd... it really needs to go (the first afd was so long ago it's not really relevent) W.marsh 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB/WP:V. Probably should have been deleted the first time it was nominated here. No sources given in the article and only 12 google hits. Wickethewok 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Note that the existence of other articles that meet the speedy deletion does not excuse the existence of this one. Gwernol 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article gives no claims of notability it should go under ((db-bio)), but let's discuss it. There are 10's of thousands of similar troupes in the world, this one gives no hints why it is notable. Wikipedia is not a free forum to advertise your company. Googling the troupe gives no special hints at notability. IMO delete. feydey 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be an advertisement. I could not locate any independant references for it. Justinmeister 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. --Titoxd(?!?) 03:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is a hoax article. RL is not played in Canada. GeorgeWilliams 10:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Denni ☯ 01:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*keep - I refer the nominator to this site, which clearly demonstrates that rugby league is still played in Canada. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was originally speedy-tagged, but author protested. However, he did not give a reason for his protest. I'm not sure the article meets speedy criteria. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like its been covered by any reliable sources. Admitted vanity article created by site owner. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB and fails WP:V. Delete. Wickethewok 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Jperlow) There is no conflict of interest because I am no longer involved in the organization. There is no vanity because it is a short article that simply lists factual information based on data from publically avaliable sources, including the site's 501c3 determination filings with the Federal Government and at Guidestar. --Perlow 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(jperlow) the eG Forums site meets -all- the criteria for internet content under WP:WEB and it should be noted that the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts and Letters is NOT a website and its a non-for-profit charity which has 501c3 status with the United States Government. eG Forums, the forum site that it hosts is a website. The material by which the article is based is can by publically accessed on Guidestar, therfore the entire content is verifyable --Perlow 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a non-notable forum, failing WP:V. I was about to speedy and but saw it had a long history and was formerly PROD'd and removed. Delete, as I think it fails WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 21:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted twice; once on 3 November by User:Merope as CSD A3 and again on 4 November by User:Slowking Man as CSD G11. GRBerry 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game developer with no evidence of passing WP:CORP; two Google hits for "Cybo Studios" [45] - own website (empty) and one blog entry. No relevant GHits for "James the Marble" [46] or Pinbey [47]. Contested prod and prod2. ~Matticus TC 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brazen self-promotion by User:MaryscottOConnor - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Delete. She is also the author of the My Left Wing Wiki page. - Corporal Tunnel 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The individual appears only to be known for an exceedingly tenuous connection to Bill Gates in 1978
The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too specialised to be encyclopaedic; reads like an advert. Firien § 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "Youtube celebrity". WarpstarRider 22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a fictional holiday that was apparently mentioned in a couple of episodes of The West Wing. I believe it is non-notable. The article looks quite long, but the majority of it is composed of information irrelevant to the subject at hand. -Big Smooth 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Individual claimed as notable only within a particular university *Dan T.* 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This pertains to a conspiracy theory about the September 11, 2001 attacks. The article does not cite any sources, and focuses instead around one article hosted on a website "attempt[ing] to uncover the truth about September 11, 2001". We have a plethora of articles on the multitude of conspiracy theories surrounding that day, but the vast majority of them are on the conspiracy theory movement, instead of on the actual theories themselves. Of the few articles that we have on the actual conspiracy theories, the articles cite a multitude of sources and have established that the theories are verifiable and, at least within the conspiracy community, widespread and notable, something which this article fails to do. While a redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories is plausible, I would advocate deletion, as the theory has not been proven to fit our criteria for inclusion, and a redirect from every conspiracy theory made regarding the events of that day would not be appropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a newbie question: Is video from Youtube, even if it is from major news outlets, allowed on the site, or is it only pictures allowed on Wikipedia? WhoWillTellThePeople 09:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)WhoWillTellThePeople[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First AfD was closed as a "no consensus" in a self-contradictory closure despite a 5/2 count for deletion and no sourced claim that the subject – a lawyer for Scientology – is notable. The best "Keep" argument (Bowles was Moxon's partner, until he messed up the Fishman/Geertz case) is not supported by any sources, and neither do the four sources establish notability. A Newsbank search for "Tim Bowles" Scientology yielded one article, for "Tim Bowles" yielded tons, but the top ten finds were about other Tim Bowleses. Absent better sourcing I recommened to delete the article or, if a notable role at Moxon & Kobrin can be established, a merge into that article. ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Glen 11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zionist Occupation Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Organization is not notable, and content is redundant Tarinth 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not a neologism, because it is not in common use outside of certain anti-semetic groups, and fails to cite any reliable secondary sources that meet the standards of Wikipedia's "Reliable sources for neologisms." At best, the subject appears to be a protoneologism, in which case it should be deleted because this article appears to exist only to promote the use of the term (despite that the article mostly contains critical discussion of the term, and many Wikipedians have attempted to correctly portray it as a fringe-term, they are merely playing into the hands of the individuals who wish to promote its usage.) In fact, the article has existed for several years and has neverbeen edited to include any references of sources.
If one considers the subject to refer to an actual organization, it should be deleted because it does not meet the criteria for the notability of organizations. Unlike significant items of historical interest, such as the Elders of Zion conspiracy-hoax, this "organization" is not notable; again, its presence as an article merely acts to ascribe notability to something nonexistant and invented by certain groups with ulterior motives.
Redundant: this subject is adequately dealt with as part of List_of_conspiracy_theories and therefore does not require more extensive coverage (and debate) here. If there is any content in the article that is additive to the subject of Jewish world domination conspiracy theories, it should be dealt with there. If it is determined that there should in fact be a separate page on Jewish conspiracy theories, it should be relocated to there.
There are pages for Antisemitism and List of conspiracy theories that would be more appropriate for this. Also, the page Jewish conspiracy currently redirects to this page. I'd suggest that when/if the content is merged elsewhere, that that page redirect to the new page (Jewish Conspiracy is clearly a larger subject than one particular acronym that hasn't met widespread usage.) Tarinth 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"