The result waswithdrawn. Deiz talk 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by author without comment. Self-promotion with no sources or references for an internet TV channel, very likely a conflict of interest. Deiz talk 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for removal of prod and discussion opened on article talk page.Chazbeaner 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Nawlinwiki, AfD malformatted. Fram 14:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
vague article needs to be deleted. Sushant gupta 11:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the page has already been deleted. the discussion needs to be ended. here. for more info take a look at the deletion log of Jacqui Smith 2. Sushant gupta 12:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Rlevse (CSD G1). WjBscribe 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Concern: "A list with unreadable formatting and unclear purpose. May be a speedy candidate as unsalvageably incoherent per CSD G1." --Muchness 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:25Z
Non-notable Internet musician. Fails WP:MUSIC; article fails WP:V for having no reliable secondary sources. Chardish 00:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List is not more than a list of films at Category:3-D films, with too many red links and does not satisfy guidelines at WP:LIST. Crashintome4196 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:27Z
Likely hoax. ArtVandelay13 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:28Z
The article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this list is unencyclopedic and redundant. Mere consistency and the precedent of other articles/lists aren't valid in the discussion of a specific article, nor is a "conditional delete" statement. John Reaves (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a pointless and random article. I see no reason to have it. --Matjlav(talk) 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:29Z
I've searched a variety of ways but can't find any online references to a peasants revolt card game. Apparently it was just made up. 2005 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:30Z
Comment I haven't voted yet, I was just helping Aboutmovies by adding the standard formatting to this page, which he seemed to have forgotten. Please don't assume I was backing the deletion nomination. I haven't decided yet. Katr67 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:33Z
Delete This just smells phony (I can find no reliable external source that supports the claim that this word even exists). I'd say take it to Urban Dictionary, but it's already there (and belongs there). bd2412 T 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very little assertion of notability. Judging by edit history of article creator and maintainers, they work for the company behind the game. Sources largely trivial. Drat (Talk) 09:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable community school--Адам12901 T/C 14:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:NOT in that there is no assertion of notability. The only incoming links are from its parent organization and from an article on the Imam which is probably not notable either. JodyB 12:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:34Z
Non notable person Ravedave 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:40Z
Orphan article with notability issues. kingboyk 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know not if this pace exists or not. But if its defining claim to notability is the beauty of its flyover and the fact that five road meet there... well, I don't know what to say. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Punkmorten 08:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition, nonexpandable to anything encyclopedic `'mikka 21:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:40Z
Procedural nomination -- had been proposed for deletion as "Cruft". --Shirahadasha 01:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (or merge, which is an editorial decision). Sandstein 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of listing all henchman in the series is a bit ridiculous. These are insufficiently developed characters who the majority of would not warrant placement on even the various "minor characters" lists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and any characters such as perhaps "Novice Hame" can find placement on the List of Doctor Who villains. May I also point out, that the entirety these minor characters' histories and characterizations are typically covered in the episode articles for which they appear ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fan managed games server, that runs older C&C games - NN, requires a line in the main article at best. Fredrick day 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:39Z
– (View AfD) I'm tagging this single, along with all of these other albums and singles for deletion, because they fail WP:MUSIC. Let's go piece by piece:
As you can see, I haven't nominated all their material - just the trivial stuff, since some of their material (and the band) appears to be notable, if currently poorly sourced. I'm only nominated these since they fail WP:MUSIC. --Haemo 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Haemo 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Garry's Mod in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:39Z
Content-lacking page about an unremarkable website that is now defunct. Flingotravels 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as a copyvio. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 04:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a Spanish-English dictionary. Maybe this should go to wiktionary somehow? I don't know. Calliopejen1 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very short, orphan Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 02:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this for POV, OR, and lack of verification. The listed pairs of characters are not twins. Any interpretation by which contributors call them "twins" invokes opinion. Listing interdimensional counterparts is redundant to another POV-laden article, List_of_character_counterparts_in_the_DC_multiverse. (The article title is also incorrectly capitalized.) Doczilla 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doczilla - the disagreement over the List of character counterparts in the DC multiverse is a separate disagreement and has no bearing here; please remove the reference to it. Thanks. Starmiter 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Delete it - I no longer care to carry on the fight over something so trivial; just be sure to give the same rigorous review to the main article, Evil twin, since it would seem that it is filled with the same kind of "Original Research." And you may want to revise the WP:OR to include 'Original Conclusions,' since the only 'research' done with this grid entry was to make sure the Wikipedia links were correct. Thanks. Starmiter 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep ~ Anthony 02:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists mainly of peacock words and advertising language and has no citations. The original author appears to have been single-purpose, and no major contributions were made to the article after creation. It seems that if the advertising (for the person's work and more obviously the recording company, per the external links) were removed, there would be little content left. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep ~ Anthony 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not encylopedic, especially compared to other economists, publications are not major 04:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:41Z
Appears to be a contested PROD. If any of the citations are from WP:RS, perhaps they can be merged somewhere; as it stands, however, this article appears to be an egregious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Delete. --Kinu t/c 04:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:43Z
Not quite sure what this is. Appears to be a theory in the political science realm, but the creator is apparently a punk rocker. Google can't shed any light, either. Contested PROD, so brought here. I've asked the article's creator for any type of WP:RS indicating that this is a notable... whatever it is... but barring that, delete as, among other things, a violation of WP:V. --Kinu t/c 05:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is a faux-sujet. The subject is not notable in itself, but a manifestation of the Virginia Tech massacre. The plethora of links and references in the VTM article would probably be sufficient indication of the width and breadth of media coverage around the world, without the need for this potential POV fork. Of course one would expect some regular shows and potentially insensitive programming to be bumped, but this is but a factor of the massacre itself. Ohconfucius 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:45Z
I suspect this is a spam article by the books author. Postcard Cathy 01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – Steel 13:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as A7 and G11, but not blatant spam. Spam, nonehtless, thoguh, from a user with few or no other contriutions. WP:NOT a software directory. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Schlafly is not notable outside of his role with conservapedia. Doesn't merit a separate article. Tmtoulouse 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Closed, article now fixed. Good work. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Is a NASA astronaut" may be a claim to notability but it's not much of an article. seems to violate WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily kept. Non-admin closure due to expansion of article and parity of results with the Karen L. Nyberg AFD closed by same nominator for identical reasons. Serpent's Choice 07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Akihiko Hoshide is an astronaut. And that appears to be the sum total of himan knowledge about him. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:47Z
The basis of the article is speculation/original research. There's already a better one at The_Legend_of_Zelda_Series#Chronology. - Zero1328 Talk? 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SIA Cargo has a very limited network of its own, and could easily be covered in the Singapore Airlines Cargo article. The very nature of the airline industry dictates that on most passenger aircraft they will carry cargo. Aeroflot Cargo is a separate entity from Aeroflot, just like SIA, but to claim that the entity known as Aeroflot Cargo services all of the mainline Aeroflot destinations is misleading. The same goes for SIA Cargo. The list of destinations can easily be incorporated into Singapore Airlines Cargo and/or Singapore Airlines destinations Russavia 09:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awards which a company receives are not notable. A summary awards should be incorporated into Singapore Airlines Russavia 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Russavia has nominated another three SIA-related articles [22] [23] [24] in the past few hours, all based on nothing but self-perceived "non-notability".--Huaiwei 07:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:47Z
Not-notable enough, the page also has irrelevant comments such as "Her favourite student is.." which all add up to suggest that the page has either been written by her or someone who knows her well. The fact her books are listed as well as external links, but no references in the text suggest it is not reliably written. Having authored books and teaching at harvard doesn't jusitfy inclusion in the wiki. Although she has won an award, the award is also not-noteable. Overall the article reads like a self-written biography which is against policy, combined with the lack of noteability suggests to me this should be deleted.> WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:48Z
No substantive edits since December 2006. Confusing name and unencyclopedic content. We also need to decide what to do with Template system formalism, which seems to be a disambiguation page pointing only to this article and to a red link – Gurch 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organisation per WP:ORG. 15 Google hits for <Objectifs "Dawn Teo"> [25], and coverage in cited sources [26] and [27], are just passing mentions of the organisation. In other words, 90% of this article is unsourced despite the citations given.
The author of the page objected to the proposed deletion on the talk page, but he misses the point in that I'm not saying having 15 Google hits automatically condemns the subject to non-notability - the point was that there are no sources that corroborate the information given in the article. Apparently this lack of detailed coverage of the organisation extends to even the local papers - a Factiva search of Singapore press sources shows 83 hits going back to 2003, mostly in The Straits Times, but they're all brief mentions of the organisation's name in "upcoming arts events" listings, without detailed description of the organisation itself. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-23 10:28Z
The result was speedy delete under CSD G11. - BanyanTree 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising Shoessss 11:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to be insufficiently notable, sources cited are to subject's own blogs, prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This team does not play in the top 10 levels of the English football league system, as required by WP:CORP, in fact the league in which they play, the GFSN National League, is not part of the league system at all and never can be given that it accepts mixed teams and does not follow the standard laws of the game. The league itself is probably notable as part of LGBT culture, but the individual teams are not, IMO. Note that another club from the same league was deleted last year - ChrisTheDude 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to King's Scholar. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:49Z
Small scholarship for a small college? Far from notable, IMHO. TexasAndroid 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating Middle English personal pronouns in the same nomination. Both pages exist only to display templates. Templates that are already well displayed elsewhere. No real need, IMHO, for pages for just the templates. TexasAndroid 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:50Z
Non-notable college student union. TexasAndroid 13:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, unsourced and orphaned article. Google search for "purple tory" finds no possible reliable sources and several uses contrary to the one in the article (also nelogisms) --Duke of Duchess Street 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently endorsement of their own game Skysmith 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no we are merely players who think this game deserves to be mentioned here. and we will improve the article, where just getting some background data.--Phoenix4ever 14:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made this wikipedia to help A) wikipedia with its grand collection of articles. B) for Atlantean wars, beacuase it deserves one. C)so people can look up (ATW) and learn things about it. If i wanted to advertise it i would have done a much better job trust me. I got approval of the current Admin of them game (1 out of 5 admins) so i continued to expand it with all the (necessary things) knowledge that seems fit for this article.
I do not break any policy's by making this article because i am not advertising it, nor did i make this article with out proper (ATW) approval.
so if this article gets deleted, it will be deleted knowingly that it did not advertise, or that i made it with out approval. And thank you Phoenix4ever for also posting. We acknowledge we are players, but we are not advertising. --Equnai 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the admin of ATW. They did contact me about it after they had already started, but I don't see any harm. I cautioned them about use of certain terms and other concerns I had and that the article be merely informational. But I don't see why wikipedia is objecting, since you carry pages of other games with similar themes(i.e. Galaxis_Online).
As long as the article is purely informational, what's the harm? Otherwise you need to edit your wiki better.
-- Lycurgus (ATW Admin)
--User: chrisesler:chrisesler
Lack of reliable source? uhm im not sure but ATW is the main source. i got all my intel from that site, what better source do you sugest? and did i use any terms such as ""join now, join, or any personal apinion about the game" i didnt. so it cant be advert. and what do you sugest should be added then? for your information i (and phoenix) am stil ajusting and creating the wiki article. its not even half way finished yet. but if by making it compleet shows it is a good source and reliable etc. i wil compleet it.
well your not gonna let us have this wiki i can tell, i just joined and was planning on adding to more articles. wikipedia is supposed to be the biggest source of human knowledge, well i wanted to add to that, but it seemes you won't let us, well congratulations you scared someone away, and judging by all the other articles up for deletion many more will leave to. cya never, --Phoenix4ever 06:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bey funx, and what does make ATW special? that a personal opinion (ich i didnt state in my not finished soon to be deleted article) wich isnt relevant. the fact that im writing an article on ATW is because i couldnt find any yet (i also couldnt find KoC, SGW etc.) so it accured to me, i could do wiki a favor by editing yet an other piece to an already large databse of knowledge. And as for the part that its only one source, tell me all of you how the hell can i find a second source if ATW is only 1 game? well? tik, tak. o wait i cant thats right cause its only one game ... ooo stupid me -_-, (ow btw that was sarcasme ^_^) im really disapointed in you, i truly am. i cant find a second source because there isnt any. and the disclaimer, why is that like its a "join now" sign? ive coem to the part where i am going to express my personal feeling and opinions now!!! ATW is a cool game, i found via my ant, who plays/played KoC at the time and i was in the same alliance. i kinda quited KoC cause i wanted to rule ATW. thats why im typing it now a year later. i thought to myself, why not give back a litle to that ATW comunity by making a kick but article and explaining every detail they worked so hard for to put it in. i didnt care about other ppl joining, it was suposed to be a guide for the ppl already joined. or so thats what i had in mind, i wanted to explain everything ATW had to offer, never once did i get the thought that this might raise there member count or what ever. i understand your points of view on the "recruiting" part, i cant persuade you to believe in the good of poeple, cause most of them are really bad (what gives you the conclusion that im any diferent? nothing thats right) and dont deserve any trust. but hell what does it matter, i made an article and you didnt even give it a week without saying it needs to go, so my trust in wikipedia is like 0 now. even the admin of the game came jsut becaus i made an honest try on making this article (not that you believe its the admin right? you think its me or someone els covering for me?)and it didnt quiet work at as i hoped it would. your probably thinkgin this post is way to long, im whining cause i cant delay the inevitable etc. i know i would do the same thing, hell i might even say shut up and get a life. but its me in the position of being the whiner. so im trying to make my stand, like the spartans did when the persians came and wanted to take over greece. they where first seen by there own poeple as the bad guys, but they tryed to save there own piece of greece. in a way so am i, if something ever did happen to the server or anything in that general direction, then ATW would stil remain here on wiki. and what if i told you there would be a second ATW? on a diferent server totaly new from the old. a brand new version, diferent rules, a new start, ages where there is a reset etc. would it be valid then? can i make this article then? this is no bluf, there wil be an ATW 2.0 on a diferent server, like SGW has with there ascended server. 2 games, 2 sources 2. would that be the sources thing you so dearly want? ifso ill just remake this ATW article in about a half year. im a patient man, so i dont care. ill keep trying, if you want something done right you have got to do it yourself right? and again about the recruiter stuf, look at the runescape article, isnt that a recruiting article? where did it get its sources from? because that 2 is only 1 game, not 2 not 3 nto 4 no only 1 game. but they must be paying wiki to stay right? thats why normal members can acces it? Equnai 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable local deejay Calliopejen1 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:50Z
Non-notable person who has written their own article. No sources and no assertion of notability. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:51Z
Delete - indiscriminate list of trivia; directory of songs with nothing in common other than being heard in a fictional club on a TV series. Otto4711 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person whose article has been created by his daughter. Google turned up five different Mark Asquiths but not him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:52Z
non-notable local award, no ghits besides wikipedia. Calliopejen1 14:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prurient. Unnotable person. Draggedpuppycruft. Granted that he shouldn't have dragged the puppy behind his truck, give the teen a break, he doesn't need this article dogging him for the rest of his life. In the Notes section, the latter two references are to YouTube vids of his car being surrounded by an angry mob; they are basically useless as references. The first reference is to an article where he is mentioned, but only in passing as the occasion for a particularly decrepit-looking MP to bloviate on the general theme of Something Must Be Done. It properly belongs as a reference in Myron Thompson and/or an article about the laws in question. Let this one go, Mneme.
(Here's another thing I love, you see this a lot: "The case has led to a great deal of controversy". O RLY, the No-Dragging-Puppies and the Hell-Yeah-Drag-Puppies camps are engaged in a fairly equal contest for the hearts and minds of Canadians... Serously, controversy? An untrue fact.) Herostratus 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, probably unsourcable. The only three Google hits linking "instant gentrification" to the term's purported creator Devereaux are Wikipedia mirrors. Even at its best, it will never be more than a dictdef: "Instant gentrification is gentrification that's instant." Huon 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is about a company that doesn't appear to have actually done anything at all. The page was created by a user with the same name as the owner of the site, whom the article only refers to by his first name. Altogether, this suggests to me that this is nothing more than a vanity page. grubber 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:53Z
inevitably NPOV, non-notable, riginal research Sarcasticidealist 15:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article has no references; I could find none beyond the society's own website. Google hits are mostly directory entries. Non-notable, possibly OR. — mholland (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and possibly written by a relative of the subject. The author removed the prod notice, not being sure quite what to do. YechielMan 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Dalejenkins 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. That was a rather bad AfD discussion. Most participants, please contribute more policy-based arguments for or against deletion in your next AfD, and less name-calling / WP:AADD. Sandstein 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable. Arrow740 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism - Although I find quite a few occurrences of the word on Google, it should be remembered that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LittleOldMe 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without reason. NN-company, no noteability asserted. Dr bab 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, seems to be noteable and sourceable after all.[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this page for deletion on grounds that it is bollocks. If I'd seen when it was first created, I'd have speedied it for nonsense. I prodded it, but User:B9 hummingbird hovering, the nearly-exclusive author of the page, objected. Hence the AfD. Michaelbusch 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:55Z
An unsourced, strangely constituted list that imho can only ever be added to in a subjective way. Violates WP:NOT, I contend. kingboyk 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is just a short list with a useless introduction ("They fascinate the human mind probably since his very first consciousness"). JianLi 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. It is the vandalised version of this page that was brought to AfD. PeaceNT 06:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides little to no content at all on it. I can't even see what the article is about. カラムTalk with me! 17:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an article about a real game in development; no links to gaming media sites, developers, publishers, and excess information unavailable at this stage of development (For example, ESRB rating). Tohya 18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear hoax. Creator Sc4900 (talk · contribs) was reported on WP:ANI for creation of hoax articles and was subsequently blocked. As per WP:HOAX, hoax articles are not speediable, hence the AfD. Regards,xC | ☎ 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there do not appear to be reliable secondary sources of which the term "James Bond pun" is the subject, per WP:NEO. People have used these sorts of puns before Bond and the implication that the form arose with Bond smacks of original research. May implicate Wikipedia is not a directory, since the bulk of the article is a loose association of quotes. Otto4711 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is unmaintainable and could become massive (with nearly 50k ports around)! Computerjoe's talk 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as no real assertion of notability (awards and courses without articles) and probable nonsense ("Mulligan Cup" is suspicious enough on its own). The author also blanked the article at one point. --Wafulz 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
new article about a golfer on JBGA tour however a google search of "Chris Blackham" JBGA produced nil responses. In an unsourced article that spells major verifiability and notability problems. As there is an assertion of notability its not a speedy so we are here at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears subject may be non-notable Part Deux 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self promotion (Creator's name matches the article writer's name), not reliably sourced (all links are IMDB), so no real establishment of notability. TexasAndroid 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced orphan article on a neologism. Google brings up no reliable sources, let alone a consistent definition. Not verifiable. Wafulz 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:57Z
Procedural nom; proposed for speedy deletion with reason "She is not notable. There are a lack of unbiased published reliable sources verifying content and notability. She in her column admits to creating the article violating our conflict of interest guideline." Speedy deletion tag removed here with suggestion to "take it to AfD". Veinor (talk to me) 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N - this is a proprietary diet which has not been the subject of any independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Unsourced (and unsourceable) promotional article is the result. Any relevant information might be merged into food combining. Prod was contested on grounds that "This diet has helped many indivuals such as myself." Propose deletion as fails WP:N based on lack of "multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." MastCell Talk 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Nishkid64 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No claim to notability. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. AfD because it was recreated after speedy.Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
covers the same ground as Global Defense Initiative, which frankly I don't think needs an article either but that's for another time. Cruft-filled and bloated, fails WP:NOT, WP:ATT and whatever the game guidelines are that I simply cannot be bothered to look up at the moment. Fredrick day 21:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable film; the page originally claimed it was produced on a zero budget, but the claim was removed with the prod. Much of it sounds like a hoax. Brianyoumans 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, a7 no assertion of notability, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason WP:OR unsourced. Seems to fail WP:CORP. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of a series of articles initiated by Graeme Davis, promoting the on-line journals of which Graeme Davis is the editor and the institute which sponsors those journals. SteveMcCluskey 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following articles for deletion as the whole series constitutes self-promotion.
--SteveMcCluskey 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In further checking Graeme Davis's edits, I found his self-promotion extended to modifying Template:UK-nonfiction-writer-stub so it became a promotion of his name. SteveMcCluskey 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please can someone help with what is fast becoming a big problem. My career is being damaged by Wikipedia, and I cannot find a solution.
I am a UK academic and a mediaevalist. I write on subjects including the Vikings. There is also a war game author who shares my name, has an article on Wikipedia, and happens to make games and some fiction books about the Vikings. His Wikipedia article shows up in Google searches. Recently this has: 1) Lost me a job interview because the recruitment team googled my name and found what they thought was a lot of junk about me. 2) Probably lost me a job – the interview panel had structured questions around an identity that is not mine, and a good chunk of a 1hr interview was spent persuading them I am not someone else.
The easiest answer I can see is for an article about me to go up on Wikipedia. There is ample justification for such an article as I am well known in my area, and many of my peers do have articles. I’ve tried to sort this out – Graeme Davis (mediaevalist) - but run foul of Wikipedia’s self promotion rules. I’ve now deleted the article that seems to be causing offence. But please can you help me here. Wikipedia cannot be happy with a situation where confusion it is creating is blighting peoples’ careers.
Thanks for the above, but it isn't a solution to this particular problem. I'm trying to find with Wikipedia a solution to a very serious problem where Wikipedia is damaging my career and my reputation because it is allowing confusion between me and someone else who bears the same name. There are issues with the existing material on Wikipedia which really cannot be discussed in an open forum because they are sensitive and have a legal dimension in many jurisdictions, certainly including England and the US. How do I talk privately to someone who can help me?
Thanks for the comments above. I don't understand how to make citations from independent sources (though clearly this is a good idea). If anyone can tell me how to do this I'll do it. In this context is it just a case of linking book citations to the publishers' websites? (I can manage this). I'm not really a wikipedia article writer, nor have I any particular wish to become one. There is a very special reason for me wanting to avoid confusion with the other Graeme Davis and any further damage to my career this confusion might cause. I've just lost a job through this, and you will all understand I'm pretty sore about this. The success of wikipedia now means that prospective academic employers in the UK are giving credence to wikipedia to the extent that they structure interview questions around what they think they have found there.
A note on a comment above. The Open University is Britain's biggest University, as well as one of the best achieving in all league tables. A policy of the University is that it does not list its thousands of associate lecturers on its web site. A handful may be listed where they have another role, but almost all are not.
The brief articles I put up about three journals pre-date my editorship of them. I think they are of interest to wikipedia readers (they are big players among academic journals). But if members of wikipedia don't like them I'm really not bothered if they are deleted. What I am bothered about is confusion with someone that leads to big career problems for me.
Thanks, Graeme Davis_
Thanks Iridescenti. I've had a go at adding references - internet links seem simplest, but no shortage of paper references if they are worth typing in. Hope this helps. Graemedavis 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Article will be salted through the end of 2007 and if it is real it can be recreated without a crystal ball in 2008.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a suspected sock of hoaxer Lyle123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Lyle123. The only reason I took it to AFD is because the speedy tag I added was removed on the grounds that "hoax" is not a valid speedy criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szyslak (talk • contribs) 21:56, April 23, 2007
The result was redirect to Tobacco Lawsuits. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News article, delete. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 21:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for deletion as spam, deleted, that was rejected by DRV, so here you have it. This article has no sources, has been tagged for cleanup since November 2006 without any evident progress on that, and the sole asserion of notability rests on Alexa - which, as we all know, is not reliable. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-27 11:58Z
This article violates Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Ample time has been given to the original creator of this article to do something about it, and nothing has happened. Because the entire text of the By-Law is not included here, it is not a suitable candidate for being transwikied to WikiSource. Ground Zero | t 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is merely a dictionary definition of a term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary nadav 22:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
minor video game character - requires a line in the relevent C&C article - WP:NOT. Fredrick day 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I previously prod'ed this page. The prod was remove because the original author said that the subject was properly referenced. As far as I can see these are all links to the subjects own papers presented during conferneces. Ergo it's not establishing the notability of the subject, but the "potential" (i don't know the rep of the conferences) notability of his work. Are these kinds of external sources significant enough to warrant an article ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joe Sanchez is listed on the Second Life wiki page as a researcher, so this page added to the credibility of another wiki page. He is published in several academic peer-reviewed journals and was listed in outside news sources for SXSW and The Austin Forum named him an emerging leader. Fits wikis biography and notability guidelines. Just added the page yesterday, it is still a new page. I am adding an external links section now. Brentwood
Joe Sanchez meets the WP:PROF criteria for academia Brentwood 00:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Brentwood[reply]
The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn criminal, not every murder involving alleged Satanism is noteworthy, the sourcing of this article seems not based on reliable sources and is hence violative of WP:BLP Carlossuarez46 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)