The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
Made a mistake writing this article. There is already one for the actor with his name spelt correctly, please delete.
The result was speedy delete CSD G3 - "Storey attained a 1st(With Double Distinction)degree BSc AstroPhysics part time by telepathy" Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious vanity piece or worse. Brings up no Google hits Pally01 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This webcomic, found here is hosted on the Comic Genesis free web host. I tagged it a week ago noting its lack of external sources, and to assertion of notability. It's ranked around 73rd on that free host as can be seen here and even if it were ranked 1st, it wouldn't mean much. - Hahnchen 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is well written and formatted, I'm not convinced that wikipedia is the place for it. Dave 00:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of trivia. Delete or Merge with Keane. Geoffrey Spear 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:CambridgeBayWeather. ColourBurst 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comes nowhere near meeting WP:WEB. de-prodded. IceCreamAntisocial 00:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted per WP:SNOW
Debate blanked for courtesy reasons.--Docg 20:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable residential complex. There's hundreds of these complexes in Hong Kong (I've lived in one), and I don't see any reason why this one is so special as to deserve its own article. It's not the tallest / most expensive to build / most reported-on development, or at least the article doesn't say so. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, Unverifiable rumor. No Google or Google News hits. Deprodded by original contributor, only improvement was replacing "A rumor has been heard that a first legal mafia operates in mercerville ohio..." with "Just this hour it has been verified that a first legal mafia operates in mercerville ohio..." Accurizer 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB. The Google searchs announces an impressive 300K+ hits but in fact only 92 unique hits![1] I suppose that's to expect from a website designed for the advertising community. Top hits are not third party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Texas Democratic Party Congressional candidate. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan site -Nv8200p talk 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet radio, no verifiable evidence of notability provided, delete. --Peta 00:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game, prod removed without reason. Wildthing61476 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Independent record label, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 00:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet radion station, no verifiable evience of notability provided, delete--Peta 01:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN, user also created a vanity page about himself (userfied to his user page) but this one he created was missed. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus/default keep. While I'm sympathetic that this has an "essay"-like feel, it is sourced, and part of series found useful by many established editors, voiced below. Xoloz 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short essay on how people don't understand genetics, not encyclopedic, delete--Peta 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete all "misconception" articles not encyclopedia material. It is ratrher a tutorial. Wikibooks OK. If there is particular important misconception like Flat Earth, then a separate article OK. But a bunch examples of ignorance is not OK. Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite. How about a "misconception" that Abraham Lincoln was the first president or that United States is the first democracy in the world, or ... `'mikka (t) 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. SPAs and newbies were discounted. Xoloz 16:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Bio she hasn't any importance in Germany or any other country, nobody would know that she exists if her mother wouldn't be UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador Yoda1893 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the German discussion there were much people who voted for the deletion of this unimportant person, She's not half popular like Katie Price for example (She's also in Germany well known for her affairs in F1) But also in Germany today there aren't much people who can remember Chiara Ohoven, she was only a temporal Feature in German medias. She even DOESN't pass the German Relevance criterias de:WP:RK, she is a NOBODY who gets not more than 326 unsimilar G-Hits. – Yoda1893 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 326 REALLY Hits on google the other links are SIMILAR, like you can see here and NODOBY could prove that she pass de:WP:RK. − Yoda1893 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Google is not always accurate or even pertinent (nor is the German Wikipedia known for sensible decisions). There are 37 articles that mention her in Germany's premier gossip weekly Bunte, a magazine akin to Hello! (source: Lexis-Nexis). I think that demonstrates her relevance for popular culture. Thus, certainly not the caliber of Ann Coulter or even Katie Price, but still: Keep. Fossa 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This price interests nobody (or do you think that we should list all people who have something little in commom with prominents like Thomas Gottschalk, like people who were born in the same city?) and even this price she has only won "half" and her mother IS the reason that anybody knows her (not for her prominence, becaues her prominence doesn't exist). That a German fan of her translated the article into German surely isn't an arguement for having more prominence than her mother! And you can see, that all English Users voted for delete – Yoda1893 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unaccredited, unnotable "institute" started in 2003[2] Article asserts no notablity. A search of "Carroll Theological Institute" at yahoo brings 337 yahoo hits with 2 wikipedia articles in the first ten hits. Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an ad and is not written in Encyclopedic fashion PrimroseGuy 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Listcruft, fails WP:NOT loosely related topics .
This seems to be a rather clear example of listcruft, and also fails WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another bit player in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. This guy is a graphics designer and one of three producers of the film Loose Change, granted, the film itself may be notable, but surely being the producer of a small film does not make you notable, otherwise we'd have articles for thousands of self-promoting Hollywood hacks. GabrielF 02:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO THE CLOSING ADMIN Louder than Words is currently also undergoing an AfD. If that article does not end up being deleted policy and the GFDL require that this become a redirect. (Otherwise I presume it will be deleted). JoshuaZ 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another bit player in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. This guy is one of three producers of the film Loose Change (video), the film itself may or may not be notable, but surely we're not going to have articles for everyone who produced a video! Otherwise we'd have articles for thousands of self-promoting Hollywood hacks. This guy specifically looks like he's about 20 years old and has had no career outside of making this video and serving in Iraq. GabrielF 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO THE CLOSING ADMIN Louder than Words is currently also undergoing an AfD. If that article does not end up being deleted policy and the GFDL require that this become a redirect. (Otherwise I presume it will be deleted). JoshuaZ 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to his book. Despite the substantial support for deletion, the man merits mentioning in his book's article, given that the book has been kept previously. Xoloz 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a pseudonym of the author of a 9/11 conspiracy book called The Terror Timeline. The book is currently under AfD and it doesn't seem likely that it will be kept. Given that this guy's only real claim to fame is that he wrote a book which consensus seems to feel is non-notable it seems hard to imagine that he himself would be notable. Note that the first AfD for this article ended in no consensus. GabrielF 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete nn person as per My Alt Account Marcus22 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Change vote to Merge with book. Now that that has been kept. Marcus22 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, nowhere to merge. Punkmorten 09:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalogue Dave 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable internet meme, I think. Andrew Levine 03:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per criteria 1. --Wafulz 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One album released on a major label (in a small country), but not sufficient for WP:MUSIC. No edits to page in over a year. Most google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. I am listing it here instead of speedying or prodding it because I have been wrong before about Chinese bands. Andrew Levine 03:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE THE LOT. Seems like the consensus is clear on this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual churches are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reasons as the original.
The result was speedy delete, no assertion of notability, being used for trolling. Nandesuka 11:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Appears to be a minor player in a minor conspiracy theory which is contested from the low amount of google hits.[4] Crossmr 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Self-admitted "new site" fails WP:WEB; keep arguments don't argue on this point, really, so it is substantively undisputed here. Xoloz 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB, as near as I can figure. Article is extremely promotional and actively solicits nude models from within the article itself. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. NawlinWiki 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A writer with one book published with a press that doesn't seem to meet the guidelines. He isn't on Amazon. He fails WP:BIO, and his book fails the inclusion guidelines for books.
I am also nominating Devil Jazz as the book in question. Crystallina 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. I have no doubt that SomeHuman is onto something, but the article as it stands doesn't pass WP:V/WP:OR on the expanded scifi concept. I'll happily userfy on request for rewrite/expansion, but this must go as it is. The fact that it started as a "one-off" Daily Show joke doesn't help this article's fate any either. Xoloz 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was copyvio!!! Grandmasterka 05:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic to the nth degree. Fails WP:BIO, is only notable (if you can call it that) by association. Chabuk 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable porn star; resoundingly fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for a non-notable clothing company, WP:CORP refers. PROD removed by IP address editor with no comment or improvement of text (aeropagitica) 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to inequality. --Ezeu 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was prodded but I'm unsure of a few things regarding its being tagged, and I'd rather run this through the more visible process. Can anyone who knows math assure me that this is indeed nonsense? Neutral Andrew Levine 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable: article title gives no Google hits, "Brandon Rush" + otaku only gives some unrelated NBA hits. Fails WP:BIO and companies fail WP:CORP. Prod removed by author Fram 04:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable student group per WP:ORG. Certainly not notable outside of the University. Ohconfucius 05:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fail WP:MUSIC by all counts, contested speedy. No vote here! Teke (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great - so the article doesn't coincide with the rules of notability on Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean the article does not belong - perhaps the rules themselves need to be revised. This is supposed to be an online (so therefore diverse) encyclopedia. If someone has heard of Level Seven and wishes to look them up on Wikipedia (which is reasonable), then why restrict them from doing so? Does it really matter if admins from America or even the UK haven't heard of this band? Is this article harming Wikipedia in any way? No! If anything, it is adding to the already sterling content on this online encyclopedia.
A band is a band. The Beatles were a band. The guy you know down the street who jams with his mates - he's in a band. It is an entity, regardless of fame or notoriety, and as an entity it at least deserves recognition on Wikipedia. Fine, so some people may not check this page as much as they would a more famous band, but some may want to - and because this is a free encyclopedia (in both financial and personal manners), people should be free to read whatever they wish. And if that includes this band, so be it. If it does not - again, so be it.
I understand that, according to the codified rules of Wikipedia, this band should not have a site. But I'm not arguing with you over those grounds; that's silly and fruitless. I'm requesting that as a member of a free nation and a user of a free encyclopedia, this band be given recognition on the unlimited size of the Internet.
Why, other than its contradiction to the 'rules', delete this page?
Truly, what harm is it doing?
--Naylor182 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete The argument that this fail WP:V is not rebutted by WP:LOCAL. The lone cite provided in the AfD isn't sufficient to overcome worries expressed in the consensus below. Xoloz 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A shopping mall of no particular significance. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Was prodded, but the author removed the tag. Indrian 05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del promo of nonnotable dating dot-com, which is in beta. `'mikka (t) 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Xoloz 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del Verifiability problem. No reputable information. The coinage is rather dubious: "dacry", what is it? Ebonics for "the cry"? `'mikka (t) 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obsoleted by new automated category maps. Out of date. jengod 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like a travel guide, and Wikipedia articles are not travel guides. Kyra 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Information without Malice
This Masthope page contains information about a community within the geographic boundries of Lackawaxen Township and is relevent to information about Lackawaxen which was not included in the original web site article. It adds knowledge about the geographic features and amenities of Lackawaxen, Pennsylvania.
Ski Big Bear is important to the economy and tourism of the region. Furthermore the article adds other relevant information about the region not discussed in the original article such as the Lincoln flag at Milford. It has value as an addition to the original article not considered by the original author. It does not in any way detract from the original article. It adds to the wealth of information. It is not written as an ad for Masthope. If need be the Masthope article can be re-written in order to bring it more in line with the standards of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake Oil Sam (talk • contribs)
It was written in Comic Sans because I Snake Oil Sam like Comic Sans and like to publish in Comic Sans. I did not understand that it was a sin among the elite of Wikipedia to work in any other than the approved format. Please forgive me for my transgressions. I guess that I am just not up to speed within the cult of Wikipedia.
As far as putting information into the original article I thought that it was better to link to a separate article that I wrote rather than mess with the hard work of someone else. But what do I know I am new around here. Like I said before I can write it to fit your agenda if that would make a difference. Obviously I still have a lot to learn. Snake Oil Sam :-(
The result was Keep after reversion to July 22 draft. Xoloz 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page looks lifted from a website; not particularly notable, anyhow Down10 TACO 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xoloz 17:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reported in the article to be a Bulgarian diplomat. Can't find anything to verify existence or notability per WP:V. AED 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Clearly, there is a valid article to be written at this title; that valid article has little to do with the draft now present, though. Xoloz 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This term is completely new. The entire article is original research. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band with no major album releases or significant tours. Google search of "Spectra Wizard" brings up zero relevant links. The band does not meet criteria set out in WP:MUSIC, and by extension is not verifiable and is likely comprised of original research and possibly vanity. --Wafulz 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
The result was redirect since already merged. Mangojuicetalk 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN broadcasting tower. Delete.-- Fang Aili talk 17:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product; article reads more like an advertisement Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sodastream as the content was merged. GRBerry 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product; article reads more like an advertisement Todd(Talk-Contribs) 09:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this here for discussion instead of a prod nomination. It was nominated by User:Gay Cdn on the reasonable grounds of advertising and non-notability. I'm neutral because I don't know whether there's any notability in the context of Buddhism in the UK (or Scotland). There are no leading articles yet in the related categories like Category:Buddhism in the United Kingdom (and I've already prodded a useless stub on English Buddhists). Is there anything here about a retreat in Scotland that's worth editing or merging?? Mereda 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could have just proded this but let's take the safe route. What can I say? Non notable group [12], crufty beyond belief, move to Wookiepedia (if they actually want this), WP is not a soapbox, ... Pascal.Tesson 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring for the moment the article is written in glowing praise of Celine Dion and is pretty POV, it's completely uncited, and nothing but 2 paragraphs, one of which is a review of the tour, neither is cited. The rest is just a list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list collection. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's more coming, I plan on writing some trivia facts about the tour and a picture. The summary of the show is from me, it's not a press review ; I'm French so you can see it's sometimes clumsy.
Is it still bad ? Should I add extracts from press reviews to make it less of a private research. Please let me know
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopedic fancruft. Jestix 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Guy 13:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Non-notable bio, probably autobio. Verging on nonsense. -- RHaworth 10:03, 12 September 2006(UTC)
Certainly not an autobio. Hardly nonsense. Pure, unadulterated beauty. Concern is acknowledged and understood but unfounded. -- Deciti 12:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod which does not assert notability of the company subject. MER-C 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod about non-notable software MER-C 10:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Fucking redirected. The Land 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be foking, naaiing, steeking, qiing, tebedaing, neeking, kuneling, ?????ing, ?????????ing, jebatiing, ебаing, oeing, ma aye loeing, nga loe ma thering, hna ma loeing, diuing, diaoing, caoing, ganing, follaring, cardaring, fotreing, iyoting, jebatiing, fukatiing, karatiing, sevitiing, prcatiing, píchating, kneppeing, knaldeing, neukening, fikiing, nikkumaing, nussimaing, keppimaing, kantoting, vittuing, nussiaing, baisering, foutreing, niqueing, putaining, fourrering, fodering, მოტყნვაing, mot'q'nvaing, fickening, gamaoing, gamoing, gamisiing, Γαμάωing, Γαμώing, Γαμήσιing, choding, lezayening, choding, baszniing, ríðaing, futuaring, ngentoting, Feisighing, fottereing, scopareing, trombareing, ciulareing, chiavareing, stantuffareing, yaruing, kay-yiing, Qu'vatlhing, ssi-baling, pisting, futuereing, pistiing, dulkintiing, kruštiing, feckening, Ng'othruoking, ?? ???ing, pukiing, Punning, onioniing, झव,Zaving, chiknuing, knulleing, puleing, گاییدن ga-yee-daning, jebaćing, pierdolićing, kurwaing, fodering, a futeing, ебатьing, ебатьсяing, Dàiriching, јебатиing, jebaťing, drbaťing, cogering, culearing, picharing, tiraring, singaring, tiraring, pisaring, chingaring, cacharing, jodering, knullaing, Okkalaamaing, Denguing, เย็ด yeting, sikmeking, چودناing, đụing, địting, đéoing, שטופּןing, fucking kidding me. Wow, that took a long time to type. Unencyclopaedic listcruft. --Rory096 10:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep or merge I'm not going to merge it, because this was split off from the main Mythbusters article (probably because they don't want all this junk there) and no one has given me any guidance as to how to merge. People, PLEASE. If you want information kept, vote keep; if merging is a good idea, do it afterwards. There's a severe limit to how much merging administrators can do. In this case, I'm just going to leave the article as it is, and note that the consensus is that merging is a good idea. Mangojuicetalk 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've contributed to this list in the past, before it was split from the main article, but this is not really encyclopedic in nature, instead being more of a curiosity for fans. It's more suited to fansite, and is a potential magnet to all kinds of trivial additions. The small list of entries on the main article should suffice. Possible transwiki?--Drat (Talk) 10:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was originally nominated back in March (see here). There was no consensus to delete, but there was an expectation that the article be updated and maintained. In early September it was prodded, without contest, but I'd like to run this through AfD again instead. Note that the only extant section is A-C, and it only goes up through Berwick. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete . Jaranda wat's sup 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fourth nomination of a collectable card game player who has been suspended and who has no notability otherwise. The first and second discussions ended up in "no consensus." After a couple people who had been strong "keep" proponents then expressed opinion that they'd changed their minds and decided that St. Clair was not notable, I made a third nomination, which was cut short on account that it was too soon of a reproposal. Now we have threat of a new edit war erupting over an insufficiently notable individual, and the edit warring parties have not added any new indications of his notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability (speedy A7). Guy 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly unimportant biographical article Drak 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy contested prod about a non-notable website which may be vanity. Note that the comment below was left by the author of the article. MER-C 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mangojuicetalk 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV-fork of Council on American-Islamic Relations. Please everybody go back to work at one article. --Pjacobi 12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, Dlohcierekim has found evidence of meeting WP:BAND. Mangojuicetalk 18:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This musical group fails WP:BAND. The speedy and prod tags were removed. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
spell chilis right u silly billies - kris_bass aka kris aka chilin00bmuncher
+ dont delete
its relevant for people who want to know about the forum but are too scared to ask in the forum itself for fear of gettin flamed. i know i felt like that once—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 212.242.223.139 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
But Kris right!
Kris: there i changed it. im no wikipedia expert editor so i guess i shouldnt be voicing my opinions like this. but i just thought i should tell people to lighten up a bit + and to spell chilis right. chillies? one l no e. and call me a nerd/geek/whatever for being picky about that, but it is truly a silly mistake to make. that said, if i had to agree, i would agree with JIP. good point, and well made
Chelsea: Exactly right! I thought everyone knew it was spelt "chili". Guess I was mistaken. As for the page, it shouldn't be deleted because of what Kris has already said, and it is a very big message board and it is notable for a wikipedia page.
^ Delete :) Dlohcierekim 00:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete — Chelsea7 Chelsea7 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete nonsense. Guy 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO. At best, belongs on List of Internet slang phrases.
WP:NPOV ("the new cool way") and appeals for help getting the word to catch on...--Onorem 12:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus (between merge and keep). Since in either case there's no need for deletion, anyone wanting a merge can handle it through ((mergeto)). Mangojuicetalk 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable little theater group. :) Dlohcierekim 12:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Headline News, this is a somewhat different article although with a couple of sentences which look hauntingly familiar (probably the result of both this and the deleted article being largely the work of single purpose account Eventus (talk · contribs), another person who likes blkanking his Talk page. This article was created by Newsjunky (talk · contribs), that account's sole contribution. I would just nuke it but it is not formally a speedy-repost (rather less spammy this time round) and there was some evidence that at least one historied editor thought there might be the germ of an encyclopaedic topic here. Guy 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Never heard of it and Google results aren't so convincing [14]. At the very least, merge with Sentul, Malaysia. Delete __earth (Talk) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last AFD was called a keep despite there being a concensus to delete. The aritlce is about a business neologism (the extent of use has not been demonstrated) and is in part an advertisment for a masters program of the same name at UC Berkely. Delete --Peta 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, possible vanity, non-notable university magazine. MER-C 13:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per G1. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is evident the article is fictional. Enrique Vargas 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Never heard of it and Google isn't so convincing. [16] Most results are from personal blogs. Delete __earth (Talk) 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 18:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Some are even original research. See Google search for result[17] . See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sentulian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherasian. Delete. At best, redirect to Kuala Lumpur. __earth (Talk) 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument falls over for New Yorker and Parisian for the simple reasons that the former is a disambiguation article and the latter is about a chain of department stores, and not about people from Paris at all. Uncle G 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion" or "Articles for deletion" (Discuss & Delete are different). Hi Wafulz, I'm still new to Wikipedia, are you a Wiki-administrator? Why call it "Articles for deletion" and then "The whole purpose of the notice is to have a discussion." If the whole purpose is to have a discussion, then it should be called "Articles for discussion" ? L joo 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got the idea from from Londoner, very simple. I believe I can create a page called Kuala Lumpurian. May I know why must delete? If anyone think the content is weak, feel free to add, why must delete? L joo 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine, forget about Londoner, Parisian, New Yorker, etc, may I create page Kuala Lumpurian? L joo 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually said anything about why this article should be kept. Kuala Lumpurian is a name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur" or "peoples living in Kuala Lumpr". Just to have a name. L joo 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur" Btw, if Kuala Lumpurian or Lumpurian is not the best name, feel free to give a better name for "inhabitants of Kuala Lumpur", anyone? L joo 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Londoner: A Londoner is someone who inhabits or originates from London. Although the term Londoner is generally accepted as covering all people from Greater London, it is sometimes used to mean more narrowly a 'Cockney', and tradition has it that true Cockneys are only those who are born within the sound of Bow Bells (i.e., the peal of the church bells of the parish church at St Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, London). Londoners come from a broad range of geographic and ethnic backgrounds. They speak with a wide variety of accents including Cockney, Received Pronunciation and Estuary English. Londoners often have a very distinctive accent, quite distinct from the rest of England.
I'm still confuse, why Londoner is ok, why Kuala Lumpurian is not ok? L joo 02:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, Londoner is the only notability in the world, the rest are not. Is this a good reason to delete? L joo 04:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be "Lumpurese", "Lumpuran", "Kualas", "Lumpurian", "Orang KL", "KLites", etc, etc. L joo 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(for a comparison, see Mumbaikar) Mumbai population is roughly 20 or maybe 30 times more than Kuala Lumpur, surely you win on Google hits. Btw, a total 132,000 hits in Google for Mumbaikar, this number represents less than 0.01 per cent of the total Mumbai population. L joo 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, we have 306 Google hits for Kuala Lumpurian. Some bloggers used it, but it is only a beginning, developing. L joo 12:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Google showed 257 hits. Anyway, English is not the only language in Malaysia, naming is too difficult. "Orang KL" showed 558 hits. L joo 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? L joo 05:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Richard 08:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very very helpful statement, thank you very much Richard. L joo 09:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gorkens is a character from a non-notable on-line magazine - http://orcmagazine.com which gets a Alexa rank of around 195,000 [19].
Related page Ridgelings also nominated. I@n 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:DVD R W under CSD G3. BryanG(talk) 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax? Google search for "Animals Kingdom" Juaniko finds ONE entry: the Wikipedia page Animals Park. An obvious skit copy of Prehistoric_Park. See near the end of Talk:Prehistoric_Park#Specific_names. Anthony Appleyard 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Whispering(talk/c) 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV,verifiability This article contains no references at all. It brings all-good-news as a commercial brochure would. Most (>95%) of this article has been written in a single edit by a single contributor. I'm proposing to delete this article on the grounds of Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. --Philippe 14:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with a major cleanup i.e. removing almost the entire body of the article instead of deleting. This seems to be the consensus of this discussion. I will start cleaning up shortly, thus eliminating the need for deletion. --Philippe 11:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax
This article is completely made up. Tracing the references back, the first reference is a link to a non-existant article from Variety. IMDB does not have this movie listed and the only references to it on the internet are Wikipedia, forums, and blogs. Kevin143 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete The JPStalk to me 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable local TV host, and most of the article seems to be dubious. NawlinWiki 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't establish notability, doesn't even register on Alexa. I think the impressive list of interwiki links is fake (the German one, at least, is incorrect). --ais523 14:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable amateur brewery. Fails WP:CORP, only claims to notability in article are participation in a local competition and recieving technical support from the 37th best brewery (as voted on a website) in the world. Geoffrey Spear 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the combination of two non-notable topics. One is a local bar that doesn't meet WP:CORP and the other is about a box of chicken wings. Neither are encyclopedic. Delete. Deli nk 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep as nomination was withdrawn and there were no delete votes Yomanganitalk 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written article, not in the style of an encyclopedia Guest Account 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non notable concept, 941 google hits, not all related. Prod removed without comment. --Rory096 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable product, article created by product manufacturer. SPAM? Bill.matthews 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Canadian businessman YUL89YYZ 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Ezeu 18:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an advertisiment, a campaign speech, an unencyclopedic entry. Speaks of unproven benefits contrary to wikipedia not being a crystal ball as well. Indrian 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20-year-old martial artist, claims to have invented new martial art, but unsourced and nonnotable. NawlinWiki 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable painter, fails WP:BIO. Google shows three hits, two of which seem to be about a class reunion; Wikipedia is the third. No reliable sources given or likely to be found. Was contested prod. Delete --Huon 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to corporate parent during discussion. GRBerry 02:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gaming website that does not assert notability, does not meet WP:CORP nor WP:WEB and does not list independent sources per WP:V. Been prodded a couple of times, and prods are removed without discussion or article improvement. Akradecki 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Nom withdrawn now that it has been redirected. Akradecki 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably hoax. No reliable sources are given. uboat.net not only fails to mention the capture of U-74 in Norway, but instead claims it was being transferred to the mediterranean at that time. Searching Google for any combination of Stine Høiby and U-74 I could think of produced no relevant results. Delete as unverifiable. Huon 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete hoax. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged inventor of a "super energized mineral concentrate". I have rescued this from speedy deletion because "Everett L Storey" scores several relevant Google hits. This may be worth recording as a mildly notable real-world hoax or charlatan product. -- RHaworth 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about CSD on this one. His software seems notable enough (it's been in Wikipedia for a while) but I don't know if he's notable enough.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. El_C 10:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A word someone just made up. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Was PRODded but tag removed by author without comment so it comes here.➨ ЯEDVERS 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was was redirect to Religion. Whispering(talk/c) 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous vote on this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious/2005-08-19. The decision to merge the contents to other articles was reverted because the consensus "wasn't very good" according to the edit summary. So I'd like to have another call to consensus. I propose that this article is nothing more than a collection of dictionary definitions, and the contents should be merged into other articles (if there's anything worth saving). (More than one because there is more than one sense of the word.) The previous proposal was to redirect to religion. If this is not satisfactory, I would propose making this a disambiguation page. -- Beland 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prod'ed this, with this text: "Non-notable product line, as they're not inherently innovative. Enumerating all the models in the line might be an interesting article, but even the collection of specifications does not make an encyclopedic article." Another editor removed the prod and made a comment requesiting the topic be kept at Talk:PowerEdge, so that brings us to a formal AfD.
I'm on the delete side, and vary from "why the heck is this here?!" to not thinking the article does any harm -- but I never find myself having a desire to keep this article. It is in poor shape now, but I also don't think that it can be improved to provide an interesting article at all. There's no argument that the line of servers is popular, but they're not innovative and are just repackaged products that someone else invented, designed, and implemented. Anything discussing the business model behind them probably belongs at the Dell Inc. article, and a catalog of the line and its configurations isn't interesting. -- Mikeblas 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer page move discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per a lengthy discussion on Talk:Pear of Anguish, there is no evidence that this device existed in the form described. Wikipedia does not need articles about every sex toy in the world; absent of any evidence of the 'historical uses' of this object, there is no need for an article on it. Please Delete. The Land 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close, this belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion GRBerry 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV title. Only the redirection has to be deleted (not the referenced article) --Gabi S. 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without discussion. Non-notable record company. They have not actually released any records. Fails WP:CORP and any other notability test I can think of. Dipics 16:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted The suicide methods page has been proposed for deletion 2 times previously, but these attempts have been unsuccessful, for whatever reason. There are a number of very good reasons why this page should be deleted:
Firstly, Wikipedia is not a manual. It is not meant to be used as a resource by people who wish to kill themselves, but it clearly can be. Consider the following which was written on wrist slashing
"Slashing or slitting one's wrists entails cutting through the wrists until one of the arteries is reached. People choosing this method die because of the massive blood loss from the radial artery or the ulnar artery. This method is also frequently used as self-harm, and it is not an immediately lethal method; therefore, not all people who slash their wrists intend suicide (this is then called parasuicide where suicide is either not sought or is not accomplished).
It is generally difficult to die by slashing the wrists since the arteries tend to try to spasm shut in response. Bleeding to death by veins is even harder and rarer. It can take a few hours or even more to finally die from the blood loss, depending on body weight, clotting problems (such as alcohol or aspirin in the blood), etc."
This gives a lot of information to anyone who wishes to end their life in this manner. It tells them some of the problems which prevent a successful suicide, and how to solve them in such a way that will allow death to occur (ie, use aspirin to prevent blood clotting). This is ethically bankrupt, and it is not what wikipedia should be about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual.
Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are some types of information which is already banned from wikipedia, such as information about people who are non notable. This policy is designed merely to prevent self promotion. Surely it is just as admirable for wikipedia to prevent suicide.
Opponents to the deletion of this article may claim that wikipedia shouldn't be censored. But the thing is, wikipedia is not value neutral. Wikipedia is about enforcing a public good, and helping the world through providing access to information which can help people. A suicide manual doesn't help anyone, but it does target vulnerable members of our community. About 1 in 5 people will experience depression at some point in their lifetime. Many people who experience this debilitating illness will consider suicide as a way of alleviating their suffering, even wikipedia users. We owe these people a chance at life by protecting them from information which they may use to kill themselves.
I am aware that it can be argued that the information itself wont kill anyone. That people who wish to kill themselves will do so even if they can't compare methods. But my point is that resources like the suicide methods page will increase their chances of commiting suicide effectively. It is well known that medical practioners have much higher suicide rates than the general population. This is because they are more successful at killing themselves during suicide attempts than people without medical training. Likewise, I believe that this suicide methods page will lead to more successful suicide attempts.
Finally, who wants to read in the newspaper that some depressed teenager killed themselves using wikipedia as a manual. That will happen unless this page is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katie32 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Maybe a disclaimer would do the trick? something pointing them to the right places that would help them solve the reasons that lead to the death wish in the first place? FreddyE 09:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, slippery slope arguments are being made on both sides. Would deleting this article be a slippery slope to more extreme censorship? Maybe a little bit, but I doubt there are many other articles that people could use the same arguments for deletion as strongly as this one, so I don't think we have much to worry about there. If we keep it, will we see articles about methods of sabotaging airplanes or raping children? I doubt that too. The MOST IMPORTANT thing is that we are not arguing about deleting other articles and we are not arguing about adding a rape methods article -- we are debating THIS article alone. I didn't stumble across this article while having suicidal thoughts, I read it because the subject is fascinating. Personally, I fall on the side of the people that speculate that, unless one is already determined to kill onesself, an article about methods isn't going to persuade them to do it. The truth is, however, that I don't really know what it would be like to be seriously considering taking my own life, and most of you probably don't either. Too much of this debate is based on speculation. In the spirit of freedom of information, I think the burden should be on the advocates of deletion to find research showing that such articles (or books) increase suicidal tendencies. Anecdotal evidence on either side of the arguments over that point (and it's probably the main point of contention in this debate) is meaningless. However, the people who have concerns about suicidal people reading the article as a how-to guide have valid concerns. The fact that there is an article about suicide methods but not about signs of suicidality DOES bother me. There should be an article about common symptoms displayed by people who are contemplating suicide. I'm sure there are myriad reliable sources for this information. I also agree that the article needs some cleaning up. Possibly a longer introduction is in order, and I think that adding something about the general uncertainty involved in nearly all methods of suicide would be good, and I'm sure it would, if anything, increase the chances of a suicidal reader's reconsideration. Look, we wouldn't be arguing about this if we didn't love wikipedia, and we would all weep if we heard about someone who killed themselves after reading this article, but I truly think that if a suicidal person is going through the trouble of research, they are crying for help. If they really wanted to get the job done, they could do it without the research I think. rgrizza 05:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text
It seems that proposing the deletion of this page has been far more controversial than I thought it would be. Some of the arguments raised in support of keeping this page are reasonable. Others aren't. It is true that other webpages on the internet will describe the various methods by which people can die even if this wikipedia article is deleted. This article certainly doesn't glamorise suicide and it does portray a verifiable social phenomenon that spans pretty much every culture.
However, this article does provide specific details on how people may end their life, and this can't be ignored. While it is true that wikipedia shouldn't be censored, it often is. There is some information that you can't find in this encyclopaedia, like "tips for how to rape children", and "how to use molecular biology techniques to modify bacterial pathogens and create a new plague". These articles don't exist because they are offensive and dangerous even though some users may find them interesting.
When the quality of this encyclopaedia is threatened, wikipedia users respond by deleting pages. Even though this page about suicide methods documents a verifiable social phenomenon, and it doesn't glamorise suicide, and even ignoring ethical concerns, the quality of this article is so poor that it must be deleted on grounds of quality alone.
This article is listcruff. It merely presents a list of suicide methods which has been taken from a website that appears to be original research. The references they provide aren't from medical journals, government agencies or newspapers. Rather, they have been built from suicide newsgroups. This is not encyclopaedic at all. It's pseudo research.
Although not unanimous, there appears to be consensus that this article is basically a suicide manual. As Nydas wrote, "This is a how-to guide. Much of the text is given over to 'common pitfalls' of suicide methods". Wikipedia is not meant to be a manual, and especially not a poorly written one.
While I concede that this article is interesting in a visceral sense, this is not enough to save it from deletion. I tried to avoid using the morality argument, but given the comment below by a depressed teenager, I am forced to bring it up.
Someone wrote that "This article is helpful, and shouldn't be deleted just because it provides accurate and specific details on how people may end their life. If people really wanted to end their lives the information to do so can be found just as easily from many other sources. And all of this is the opinion of I, a depressed, but not suicidal, teenager. Thank You"
People don't start out suicidal. It begins with depression, and develops as the depression gets worse. This teenager admits depression, and has decided to look up suicide in wikipedia. Doesn't this indicate suicidal thoughts? My fellow wikipedians, we have to protect young people from themselves. Let's not prostitute our values for poor quality articles. Katie32 (talk • contribs)
Compromise proposal A compromise would be, if the article is kept, at least to allow prominent reference to resources which might help people to deal with their situation without killing themselves. You could regard this either as a balance between NPOV and WP:NOT EVIL or, indeed, as truly neutral point of view in that methods would still be set out (the how-to manual if you will) but the alternative point of view, that there are other approaches open to the potential suicide which deserve consideration, would also be given due prominence. Chelseaboy 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once this nomination for deletion is defeated, is there a way the article could be protected from future nomination? The repeated attempts to remove it on non-policy grounds can be considered disruptive, per WP:DP.GideonF 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fantastically written article, especially for ones first contribution to Wikipedia, but I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough. Dave 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as CSD A8 by DVD_R_W. Aaron 23:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without discussion. Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. Dipics 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming alright: text was copy & pasted straight from [24] Wasn't there a dialup online service in the UK in the 1980s using that name? Malcolm Farmer 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My speedy criteriation was wrong (though it may be A7) Computerjoe's talk 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak delete (see below) - Blatant spam — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable gaming site fails WP:WEB. At present, they claim to have increased from 390 to 100,000 members in 3 days. Likely WP:HOAX. alphaChimp(talk) 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable student organization. There are 0 Google results for the organization name in the title and only one if the ampersand is replaced with "and". Prod removed. Erechtheus 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was AfD withdrawn by nom. Aaron 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Apple iTV is a codename for a product that is announced to be released in the first quarter of 2007: The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Computerjoe's talk 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable new website, only one Google hit, fails WP:WEB Fram 18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without comment. Some kids made up a game, want it documented here. Fails WP:NOR, WP:V and, of course, WP:NFT -- Fan-1967 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:Soft. Not notable. Sleepyhead 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 18:08, 21 September 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)) . |
NN, WP:LIST, copyvio, fancrufty, WP:FICT. This page is a regurgitation of a geocities page and has nothing about the actual language, it is just a listing of terms. All that is needed is a notation on the language on the source fictional universe page Sword of Truth and the geocities link ref which is being added now. NeoFreak 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I see it as being a worthy page to keep. I vote Keep it Mystar 13:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gezzz Neo why is it that all you want to do is to tear down anything but your ASOIAF pages? Talk about fancrufty the whole BwoB on GRRM's page is all that... Dude, you seriously need to stop being an edit nazi. If you cannot add to the positive aspect then stop trying to destroy a page. All you can do is to point out what "you" see as faults. All you do is to add content (and questionable at that) to your asoiaf pages. I think we need someone to look into your abusive actions on this whole issue....
BTW.. this ISN'T Geocities it is Wikipeda... what is or isn't on other MB's has nothing to do with what is or isn't on this page. Mystar 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP it. It's a relavent part of Sword of Truth information. I'd have no problem however, if you wanted to add more to it. Merritt 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Merritt
Definitely keep it. This is where the information belongs. Joedu 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Joedu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
Keep it. The language of High D'Haran is a very large part of the novels. There is no reason to delete it. Maybe just add to it.69.253.42.212 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Harmony — Possible single purpose account: 69.253.42.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
Ahhh yes! People who may have been following the edit war of these three agains anything Goodkind and decided to "weigh in" against something they feel is warrented, and here we go! I think you need to take a step back dude. I see teo new people...so what? meritt has had other contrib's and here you go trying to belittle his goodfaith and opinion as unimportant. Stop being a Wiki snob eh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystar (talk • contribs) 21:39, September 19, 2006
Not saying you put the tag by my name, but there is a tag (as of 8pm est) saying that my account may have been a single purpose account. I can assure you that I did not create it for the sole purpose of putting my 'vote' into this page. Not trying to start an argument, just trying to put my two cents in. Thanks! 192.254.30.2 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Merritt[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 17:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable roguelike described in a stub article. Unlikely to ever be expanded substantially. Nandesuka 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete this and Fire It Up with The Spinners. - Bobet 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement Cfrydj 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the DrunkenSmurf (Personal attack removed) instead of deleting Wikipedia entries of Sports Talk Radio programs in the Greater Boston area. By quickly looking at his profile, I know exactly why he has no life (went to Holy Cross). GO EAGLES! (#23 AP Poll) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriBrick (talk • contribs)
Cfrydj, I never removed the nomination to delete the Fire It Up page. Erroneous.Fireitup 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cfrydj, I challenge you to dispute the objectivity of the Fire It Up page. It is written in third person and is linked to multiple other wikipedia sources. The page could be expanded upon by numerous editors in the listening region. The show has been written about in "The Tufts Daily," "The Stonehill Summit," and has been associated with multiple sporting events involving actual Division II and III university athletic teams. The Fire It Up page is not some cryptic babble, and it certainly IS noteable. Erroneous on both counts.Fireitup 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I feel people are making a mistake, such as the "My Alt Account" gentleman, by not addressing each show proposed for deletion separately. We do not now if he finds Fire It Up or Dante and the Brick to be the non-notable show. I do agree with the later commenter who believes this discussion is spreading the gospel of WMFO, just as a wiki page for Marlboro cigarettes informs people about cigarettes. Thus these pages must be notable.Fireitup 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some people just need to mind their own business. Why is this page under attack by the Cyber-Geek Squad. —the preceding comment is by 24.147.18.43 - 23:17, 12 September 2006: Please sign your posts!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.34.202 (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (Only edits are to this page.) :) Dlohcierekim 18:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be my first response or comment posted on wikipedia, but I was searching through for shows on WMFO on wiki and I came across Dante and the Brick and the Fire it Up programs. I respect what Dante and the Brick do, I believe they are a fresh face to the usual stale talk/music that is WMFO weekdays. As for the Fire it Up program, they talk some damn good sports regarding the Boston area. These guys have talent and people should catch on to the popularity. Check out their website at fireitup.bravehost.com, you'll see that their show is significant and has a following. There, that's my concerns, if you have a problem with that, then stop being a friggin policeman of the internet and get a life. Go worry about something else.JHA30 06:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer each objection to this page in turn: 1. It is not an advertisement. Neither WMFO nor the personalities in question will in any way profit from the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. 2. The information is verifiable. The WMFO website notes the show and time slot and information about the shows exist in student publications which are archived. The show's prior episode may be reviewed at the station website. 3. The entry is notable. The show originally in question, Dante and the Brick, and the show incorporated by the "geek patrol", Fire it Up, are or were broadcast over a large geographic area with at least the potential to reach a large number of listeners. Both can be listened to from around the world through itunes and the WMFO website. It is uncontested that WMFO is notable, therefore the flagship shows carried should be considered notable as well. 4. The show is "encyclopedia notable". This phrase must be read as applicable to Wikipedia rather than less inclusive encyclopedias. This article provides only verifiable facts regarding a single unambiguous subject. It provides a definition of a radio program that is useful to anyone searching for this information. 5. It is not a "vanity" post. Neither personality's proper name is given and the actual broadcast likely reaches a significant number of listeners regardless of this entry. 6. There is little possibility of misdirecting a reader. There is no competing 'Dante and the Brick' entry and users searching for "Dante" or "The Brick" will realize it is not the information they sought upon cursory examination of the article if not at the search screen. Finally the consequences of deletion far outweigh the consequences of allowing the information to remain. The availability of information about this program is notable and useful to listeners, potential listeners, and any other information seeker. Dante and the Brick offers a unique type of talk radio in its market and Fire It Up offers a unique perspective on boston sports. The Boston talk and sports radio markets are both significant and crowded. The low probability of misdirection shows that there is virtually no consequence to allowing the entry to remain. For these reasons this post should not be deleted. —the preceding comment is by JourneyRocks - 23:31, 17 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!
Oh so because it was the user's first edit, it should not be considered? Is this user not notable because he hasn't had 1 million edits on Wikipedia like those in the cyber geek-squad? What he said was right, come on now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.18.43 (talk • contribs)
Who IS said closing admin? I thought this was a community decision...Fireitup 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The community has spoken, and I'm sorry to announce both William Pietri and Cfrydj have been voted off of this debate. Their comments are rendered useless because they have no knowledge base about the shows. Mr.T pities you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs) Please sign your comments.Cfrydj 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of fun being had at the expense of WMFO's finest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.45.135 (talk • contribs)
The result was speedily deleted after author blanked VoiceOfReason 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Fails WP:CORP, no assertion of notability under corporation guidelines VoiceOfReason 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Admittedly, by strict tally, this argument is on the verge of being "no consensus." Considering that the keep arguments fail to engage on matters of policy (deferring instead to personal beliefs regarding the site's quality), the strength of argument weighs in favoring of deletion. The complete lack of reliable sources decides the matter; but, I will happily userfy for anyone willing to search out such reliable sources. Xoloz 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article features no serious claim to (or proof for) notability for this website as required by WP:WEB. Although it has an Alexa ranking of 20,814, it does not appear to have any noteworthy Google coverage (516 hits, mostly from porn sites). Contested prod. Sandstein 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate vanity page of non-notable corporation; no evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 20:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a weird one. Basically, this is about a subforum of a website, which does not (IMHO) fulfill any sort of notability criteria (let alone WP:WEB) - and the article contents probably would warrant a complete rewrite in any case, in which case Deleting won't hurt. The more odd thing is that I bring this to AfD: I deleted this already, but thought I was kinda-sorta stretching CSD A7, because this is a web forum and not a group of people; however, while a witty philosopher might lump them to same group, the practice is still highly controversial (I'm not saying yea or nay on that myself). I figured that CSD is for uncontroversial stuff and I can't decide myself, it won't hurt to AfD. So here it is up for evaluation, for the sake of the Process. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally proded but tag removed by creator of the article Paullakso (talk · contribs) whose sole edits are to this article. The product in question is a learning tool sold on the web. The Google search for "bookmap + learning" provides 154 unique non-wiki hits although a quick stroll through them will convince anyone that most of these hits are unrelated to that product. Perhaps more telling is the search for "Brain-Oriented Organized Knowledge Map" (which "bookmap" stands for according to the article. This generates 15 hits, including two wikipedia, three forum posts and two from the product's website. Plainly and simly fails WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without comment. Website and "social group" for Utah arts scene. Alexa is over 2 million and Google search finds less than 200 links (80 unique) from other sites. Fails WP:WEB -- Fan-1967 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Xenasings 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Xenasings[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sexual practice, discussion of which is primarily designed for shock value. This page was already declined on Articles for Creation. Strait 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. Only 177 unique Ghits and no sign of reliable third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Ezeu 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student. Prod tag removed by anon without explanation. DMG413 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. The article is copyright violation, and I removed the content. But without doubt google search shows more than enough notability and press coverage. `'mikka (t) 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Ezeu 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del essay, which is a random text about subculture. If you delete the word "youth", or replace by the word, say, "army veteran", after small context changes you will get an article of same meaningfulness. I am not saying that the topic is invalid. It is just the article that is useless. Mukadderat 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm going to be bold and list this article for deletion (my first ever afd), so please forgive me if my reasons are not valid.
That said, I believe this article is not notable (a fictional event in a recent adventure book, which can hardly be considered classic, or even notable among recent literature). It consists largely of speculation, and is written in a factual tone (I changed the first paragraph to make it obvious it was fictional). The only useful content could be integrated into some of the other numerous, numerous pages on the Inheritance Trilogy.
I'm done. --nkayesmith 08:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic language, and could easily be merged or redirected into an article about the book. Djcartwright 00:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero ghits of band or albums, description of band is "Western Sydney alternative-rock band and counter cultural group of artists formed by a three blind albinos and a cat. The band plays infrequently and has released a series of somewhat influential albums". Prod as unverifiable, probable hoax removed (and an earlier prod was also removed - it had no edit summary so I'd missed it). --Jamoche 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was de-prodded about a week or so ago with the assurance that "it is cannon" [sic] mentioned in the article (never a good sign). I tagged with ((clean up)) and more importantly ((Unreferenced)). While in the most excruciatingly painful sense it is technically canon (see here), the vast majority of this article is pure original research. One line in a TV show and a fan site entry do not combine for notable encyclopedia articles. Irongargoyle 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a non-notable list, I almost speedied it myself. But, prod was removed 11kowrom 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Awolf002 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable church housed in a high school. 58 Google hits, not all relevant. Article is extremely unencyclopedic and most of it seems to be about a group of friends. PROD (confirmed by a second editor) was removed by the article's creator without explanation. -Elmer Clark 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable, but reads like a bookseller's ad; unencyclopedic and not of great apparent notability (26 total Google hits, most of which appear to be incidental mentions and this page). Djcartwright 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]