< February 4 | February 6 > |
---|
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 10:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable Bobby1011 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, keep. Punkmorten 08:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not worthy of its own article. Any information about Nordfjordeid, if it truly is significant, may and should be placed in the main article for
Eid, Norway, as the information there is similarly sparse; I would rather expand the latter page into something more than keep two stubby ones. Nothing to merge from here, though. I move to delete. --
Kinu 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete - brenneman {T} {L} 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP: Nn download stats, no media coverage. I tried three times to ask the article creator/company founder to assert its {{ notability}} and he concludes I'm a competitor. I hereby ask the community to decide.-- Perfecto 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
You people use the words "spam", "dishonest" and "hideous" to describe the company page for Techlogica? Its almost as if you don't even know the meaning of these words. Spam? No, spam comes in your email, our page isnt being forced on anyone. Dishonest? No, I reverted my page after what in my opinion was vandalism. Attempting to delete an article for no reason, now that I would consider dishonest. Very strange how you (Perfecto in particular) seem to be on some kind of crusade to get our page deleted for no reason other than the fact that you don't like it. Our page isn't any different than the other company pages listed here. It was simply a resource for someone interested in our company to see some general information. This whole thing has been very silly, asinine in fact, and very juvenile. I'll never understand how people get off on making things hard for other people.
The result of the debate was delete, already blanked by creator. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn ghost. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - brenneman {T} {L} 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no sign that BMP will actually film in Detroit. This article is pure speculation. Sensation002 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant spam. Reyk 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - brenneman {T} {L} 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete- Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a translation site. Rory096 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Timothy Treadwell. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert its importance. Delete — Brim 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. JIP | Talk 10:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Resuming AfD per my comments below. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing links to this page. -- Aaron 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing links to this page.
Hbackman 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged as PROD but referred here. I believe schools to be worthy of inclusion regardless of geographic location and vote to Keep. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete We don't do subpages in the main namespace, and a changelog for a game is not ensyclopedia material in any case. -- Sherool (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete now that's what I call consensus. W.marsh 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. No Alexa rating. One google hit and it appears to have been created by the owner itself. Delete Dr Debug ( Talk) 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Online magazine which started Feb 1st. 4 google hits. No Alexa rating. Delete Dr Debug ( Talk) 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I am a member of the team who put the Podcast User together. We are not aware of who put the entry on WP. Please delete. We have no interest in having a WP entry. Paul.Pinfield
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. -- W.marsh 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability criteria for bands Amcfreely 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but a move/redirect is in order. W.marsh 02:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician Amcfreely 01:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of this wiki is not asserted in the article. There are only 182 registered users, and 5930 total pages. The article was nominated for deletion in December, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S23 Wiki. The result of that discussion was "no consensus", because of 3 late "keep" votes from the Wiki's members. dbenbenn | talk 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTICE |
If you came to this page from http://s23.org/ or some similar site outside of Wikipedia wishing to affect the deletion decision process, please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored. Please remember this is not a simple vote, but rather a discussion. If you wish the article kept, you should make logical arguments as to why the article should stay. |
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pathoschild - CSD G1 -- light darkness 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - factually incorrect nonsense, no Hohenzollern king named richard Xorkl000 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism that claims to be a branch of philosophy, but really just refers to one sparse website. Googling for 'metameaning' largely pulls references to the Wikipedia page or that web site. Sukiari 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a random web service. WP:WEB Stifle 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 02:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a (language) dictionary. Maybe merge this into Maori or Maori language? Hbackman 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This rapper asserts some notability, but I couldn't find much on google and as it is it fails WP:MUSIC. Delete unless someone can provide more evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 02:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
List of vague adjectives with no connecting ideas or explanations. Nothing noteworthy to keep and the ideas are directly copied from the author's personal webpage [3] save biblical references. This article should be deleted and the link to the "Forty-nine character virtues" should be placed Bill Gothard's wikipedia page for interested parties. Arbustoo 06:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator -- light darkness 05:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable non-English phrase. Delete.
Grandmasterka 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination based on it being the national anthem of
Burma.
reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a direct copy (not even any formatting) from other sites, including http://www.thuglifearmy.com/news/?id=8 Nothing else is in the article. It has been this way since it was created. No one has/will step up to clean it up since it has been in cleanup status since November. The Deviant 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:12, Feb. 11, 2006
Last active in 2004, according to their website; never successfully elected anyone (yet). When they have a base of 100 elected officals, an article would be appropriate. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
author has requested it be deleted due to the band not currently meeting wikipedia standards. No idea if this in fact the case Geni 03:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily redirected to whitewash. Consensus seems apparent - being bold. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Duplicates Whitewash -- CTSWyneken 03:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge/Redirect drboisclair 03:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy move to User:Douglas Gross/Multitasking at author request. -- RHaworth 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that this should be simply deleted outright, but at any rate it isn't an encyclopaedic article in its current form - I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. The title of the page, and overall tone, make it clear that this belongs elsewhere.-- P e ruvianLlama( spit) 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted: I can't find anything about this supposed Jedi online other than mirrors of the wiki page. Furthermore, have talked to multiple star wars fanatics who have no recall of him at all. I strongly suspect that someone made this character up and put him on Wikipedia. In any case, highly non-notable. JoshuaZ 05:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- BorgQueen 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - smells of WP:VSCA and poorly written too -- Xorkl000 03:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This came up in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamers daily, and in the interests of fairness I have listed this too. A weekly 2 hour radio show with no indication of notability. Alexa ranking over 300,000. Janitorial action so no vote from me just yet. kingboyk 03:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Nobody come's up with an assertion of notability, I say delete too. -- kingboyk 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
SCHMEEELE SCHMEEELE2 blopblopblopblop
IT'S PISS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.44.223 ( talk) 17:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Neologism, possible hoax. None of the Google results have anything to do with the topic. King of Hearts | (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
All of three Google hits, two of which are from the same site. Doesn't seem notable. Daniel Case 04:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for speedy, but contested by the article creator with a mild assertion of notability. This, however, appears unclear, with no references and 0 relevant hits on Google. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Well there are plenty of facts out there to prove the information. I'm sorry that it's all not Google accessible. Not all information is found on google. Plenty of Court documents and Mission statements from him are out there, sorry if they're not on google.
The result of the debate was deleted. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:15, Feb. 11, 2006
Non-notable campus group Wkdewey 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Put up for deletion once, but there was no discussion [5]. Non-notable. Hbackman 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Appears to be fan fiction of some sort. Google search only returns answers.com version of article, nothing links to article here. BryanG 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn Prodego talk 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. A
Google search on the phrase in an environmental context shows it being used only by the same blogs and individuals who happen to have linked to it from their own Wikipedia pages.
Aaron 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination per discussion below. --
Aaron 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Consensus was to delete all except Hatch. W.marsh 02:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Thepangelinanpost has created a ton of articles on reality TV show contestants, with no other claims to notability apart from being on the show. I dont know what the guidelines say so I'll list this one here as an example. delete BadSeed 04:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The other articles: Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, Sean Rector, Robert DeCanio, Zoe Zanidakis, Gina Crews, Peter Harkey, Patricia Jackson, Gabriel Cade, Kelly Goldsmith, Carl Bilancione, Frank Garrison, Teresa Cooper, Clarence Black, Silas Gaither, Linda Spencer, Lindsey Richter. This guy ( Richard Hatch (reality TV)) won, does it make him more notable? -- BadSeed 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Does not meet criteria at WP:MUSIC. ~ MDD 46 96 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. W.marsh 02:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Voted off Survivor, now vote her off Wikipedia Ruby 04:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. W.marsh 03:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Voted off Survivor, now vote him off Wikipedia Ruby 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, appears to fail WP:WEB, has only 186 unique Google hits when you remove the founders' name. Might be worth merging into Bruce Sterling. Aaron 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Rambling, marginally comprehensible, problems with tone (frequent use of "I think"), problems with NPOV. Looks like a chunk of someone's paper, cut and paste without context. Might also be interpreted as containing ethnic slurs, although the prose is so convoluted I couldn't quite decide. Delete, unless someone's willing to do a massive cleanup - Csari 04:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what this is. I wasn't able to find any hits searching the web for this material. Fiction? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable artist whose entry in the Wikipedia was crafted by 'LNF Productions' who also happens to manage him... Sukiari 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
LNF productions: no records, 1 myspace page, and a whole lot of edits promoting their artists, all non-notable Sukiari 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to noon. why not? — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:20, Feb. 11, 2006
Transwiki. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This belongs at Wiktionary, as the tag on the page indicates. Hbackman 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:22, Feb. 11, 2006
Seems to be primarily known for one book, article created by anon, does not link to or from anything else in WP. Despite the fact that I may look this book up myself, I'll have to call WP:VANITY on it and vote delete. Sar e kOfVulcan 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
She also does well on a Google scholar search [13]. Capitalistroadster 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete A8. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A kids' baseball league. I {{prod}}ed this earlier, but the template was removed on the basis that it's been around since 1981. It is, despite being 25 years old, inherently non-notable. Community-based sports for the kids might be beneficial and all-round good fun, but there's nothing encyclopaedic about them. Delete BadSeed 05:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:25, Feb. 11, 2006
Editing history shows many edits inserting advertorial content, page is largely vanity oriented. Non-notable photographer attempting to sell his wares. Sukiari 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:25, Feb. 11, 2006
Not notable, most likely. A list that doesn't give a source, and 14 Google hits. Evil saltine 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pathoschild: CSD A7 -- light darkness 05:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as vanity. Google searches for "Nathan G. Thompson" and "Nathan Thompson" turn up no pages about this particular Nathan G. Thompson, as far as I can tell. Hbackman 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:32, Feb. 11, 2006
Original research, unlikely to be encyclopedic ever. Scott Ritchie 05:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 13:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Does not cite sources. This appears to be little more than a concept from some sociology paperback, which likely masks some political or cultural agenda. Suggestions for what else to do (merge) with this article are welcome. Shoehorn 05:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No doubt, a search in Japanese would come up with more. A Google book search came up with three pages showing the term is commonly used. [16] Google Scholar comes up with 76 results too [17]. Both verifiable and a notable phenomenon in Japanese society. [18]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a reposted copyvio. — Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Falls under Wikipedia:Autobiography, as Chrisbarrett2006 created it. In addition, a previous VfD resulted in a deletion.
Rory 0 96 |
The result of the debate was — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:37, Feb. 11, 2006
Delete. Non-notable, and the site is apparently now defunct anyway. Hbackman 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 13:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hbackman 06:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverified, non-notable. Delete Ardenn 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, vanity. nn. Delete Ardenn 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete — Cleared as filed. 15:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete; non-notable, with only 64 Googles. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep; Does only 64 google entries really cause an entry to be non-notable? What number of google entries makes something notable? 64 isn't pages and pages of results, but seems like a large enough number to remain notable. PS-My search brought up 69.... Madangry 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
**Comment. Madangry, are you sure that excerpt doesn't violate
WP:COPY?
EdGl 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
spam ccwaters 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 15:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Smells like a vanity page to me Deville ( Talk) 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:40, Feb. 11, 2006
Non notable card game. No verifiable details about origin or popularity. Possible hoax. Delete TheRingess 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 23:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:41, Feb. 11, 2006
Unverifiable. Likely hoax. No hits in IMDB. — TheKMan talk 06:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, and don't bite the nominator, either. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:45, Feb. 11, 2006
Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete Ardenn 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable... whatever it is. Some kind of technology. The article isn't even descriptive enough to say what.
Rory 0 96 |
The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panty Waste
User:Pickelbarrel, who previously created Panty waste wrote this article. Random exhibits in art galleries don't get encyclopedia articles. Rhobite 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. No further debate or action required. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A school of 30 kids is not notable, note that this school may share the name of other schools with the same name. Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The author of this page has since redirected it and merged it into another article. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, vanity. nn. Delete Ardenn 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006
Software with no discernible notability, alexa rank for project page of 904,570 Ruby 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006
Delete. This is Billie_joe121's third "Adriana" hoax page. See the AfD votes for Adriana Brady and Adriana Rogers. As for this article, IMDB lists no Adriana Acorah on the show Footballers Wives. The timeline of this hoax does not line up with Bianca Perez's actual marriage to Mick Jagger. 1 The clothing store ownership claims are equally silly. Vslashg 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006
Not a speedy because they have "played the notable SXSW festival twice" but they are "currently in the studio recording their debut album" Ruby 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006
Not patent nonsense but leaning quite to the bullocks side, unless Mr 9mm is supposed to be a character in something. Ruby 07:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006
Small, non-notable town. Delete Ardenn 07:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006
The article itself states that this is a rumored title. Following that logic, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, when I tried to look for sources on the internet, Google didn't throw up anything of use, so it seems to be a fanmade title as well. Soothing R 07:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn. Thought about listing this for speedy deletion but it's been around for a while. Maybe it could be merged with Eel Pie Island but I can't see much worth merging. Gimboid13 08:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under criterion A1. - Lucky 6.9 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable and almost certainly non-notable. The subject is "pre-established" and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article also lacks context so badly that it's virtually impossible to tell what it's referring to—for this reason it might qualify as a speedy delete ( CSD A1), but for now I'll just say delete. – Sommers (Talk) 08:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:00, Feb. 11, 2006
The result of the debate was A7 speedy of previously deleted material. Author also used a highly abusive sockpuppet in an attempt to sway the vote. - Lucky 6.9 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was k33p. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:02, Feb. 11, 2006
In a word, advertising. Delete TheRingess 09:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:04, Feb. 11, 2006
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as non-notable biography ( CSD A7).-- Alhutch 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Autobiographical, Not neutral point of view
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement TheRingess 09:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep those who suggested a merge should consider following up on that. W.marsh 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This does not appear to be notable. Searching for this term on google provides 0 hits. Sarge Baldy 10:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. What nonsense! — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:06, Feb. 11, 2006
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Vslashg 10:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 15:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Poorly formatted, not much information Thorpe | talk 10:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:07, Feb. 11, 2006
Delete -- SammyTerry 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete nigerian slang. Melaen 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 11:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Gushing POV, questionable notability. Gaius Cornelius 12:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Asserts no notability, advertising O bli ( Talk) 12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete un-notable episodes. Melaen 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
'delete dicdef already on wikitionary. Melaen 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Apodization is a technique used in optics. It can be used to alter the effects of diffraction. Texts on Fourier optics often discuss this at length. A good article in Wikipedia which describes aspects of apodization as it relates to Fourier optics and diffraction would belong in an encyclopedia not a dictionary. reply
The result of the debate was delete, as nothing here was merged to the redirect article, and then redirect to List of school pranks. — Cleared as filed. 15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
How widespread and notable is this schoolyard pastime? Difficult to Google search, but it appears to be a term related to baseball. Punkmorten 12:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism. Melaen 12:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete hopefully those calling for keep/cleanup will do that cleanup. W.marsh 23:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert for an Estonian 'academic fraternal organisation'. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but it doesn't seem to be on the same level of significance as those American fraternities. Google hits are mostly in Estonian, but even getting past that I didn't see anything that looked like an independent source. A Google for the name of the organisation and the name of the article's creator implies that the article was not created by an outside party. [35] Delete as non-notable group of people (though probably too big to be covered by the speedy criterion). -- Malthusian (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is another of a series of made up genres on Wikipedia. The term Post-Black Metal doesnt exist, because the bands advertised are figure heads of the black metal scene (See the Black Metal article. It also claims its a genre that includes black metal bands that do new things - which doesnt exclude them from being Black Metal. The term Post-Black Metal, also claims that the Black Metal scene is no longer prominent, when its grown to be a leading pioneer in Metal Music, as Heavy Metal previously was. The article also makes claim it isnt the same as Symphonic Black Metal, but then goes on to repeat the Symphonic Black Metal article, and its subsidary on the Symphonic Metal article. As such, this article is somebodys obvious distaste for a minute number of Black Metal bands, and has No Notability, No Sources, uses Weasel Language and is overall a complete Neoglistic Strawman Attack at Black Metal bands that do not conform soley to the original sound of Black Metal. Leyasu 13:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Well below WP:BIO as a local small city (pop 88K) council member - was not fully mayor as mayor pro tem just means there was no mayor for a while. In any case, not a national or statewide office, nor exceptionally notable as a local office holder. Pulled from prod since verifyiable Obina 13:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Cute, but apparently very non notable- minus Wikipedia, 18 Google hits. [36] CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 13:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think this guy is notable enough (yet); sure, he has an IMDb entry, but anyone can submit info for an IMDb entry, and it looks to me as if his screen work has been bit parts - it even says in the article "seen for a little time on screen". The original editor's contributions list makes this look like vanity to me. A Google search for Bob Lenzi brings up 71 hits which seem to refer to other people. Delete CLW 13:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-bio - SCEhard T 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non notable, unverifiable, vanity Gaius Cornelius 13:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete (blanked by creator and such an obvious hoax that it's really not bothering with). David | Talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Per comments by Dbiv: Believed to be a hoax. No such peerage creation has been made in the London Gazette. -- DanielCD 14:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 04:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete indian dicdef.
Melaen 14:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete turkish dic def, maybe an attack page Melaen 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete spanish dicdef. Melaen 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism, dicdef Melaen 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism, no reference found with this meaning Melaen 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. In the future, please Search The Fine Encyclopedia first before deciding something is a neologism. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism. Melaen 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep redirect. W.marsh 05:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable kingdom consisting of a single house with 45 members. Fails the criteria of a notable country. Most likely added by the king himself. Delete Dr Debug ( Talk) 15:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism, 6 google hits. Melaen 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete dutch dicdef. Melaen 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete non notable portmanteau, neologism Melaen 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
advert that doesn't assert notability KeithD 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Teams from High Schools are not-notable. That film which they are said to be starring in might have gained them notability, but Google hasn't heard of it. Therefore, I have to come to the conclusion that this article is not-notable... Soothing R 15:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dicdef Delete - Doc ask? 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete transwikied dicdef. Melaen 15:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism. Melaen 15:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vanity page -- not ranked on Alexa. [38] ran ( talk) 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism, few google entries with this meaning Melaen 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism. Melaen 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (non-notable person).-- Alhutch 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I decided to wikify this article until I came to the point where it says that he saved 2.6 billion people. One would think he'd get a little more than 3 Google hits after saving one third of the world's population. O bli ( Talk) 15:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete singapore neologism. Melaen 15:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete slang Melaen 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete neologism? not a single google hit. Melaen 15:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Grue 16:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song? Compu te r Jo e 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. — Cleared as filed. 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I became aware of this article after someone pointed it to me in the AfD of Larry Kissell, another candidate, which looks like it will be deleted. My reasons are still the same from that AfD, but I'll summarize them here anyways: WP:BIO states that generally only "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" and "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" should be included. If he's elected, we should definitely include an article, but until then, I'm not too sure. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary and OR. Existing articles on Scientology already explain the concept to outsiders wikipediatrix 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary and OR. Existing Scientology articles already explain the concept for outsiders. wikipediatrix 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Original Research/advert/ WP:NOT a how to guide your pick Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Originaly proposed for deletion with reason: "nn bio - he was born noble and he dies in a war". There are also no entries in Polish wikipedia (he is Polish). Jan Smolik 16:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND Anabanana459 17:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'delete". -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete vietnamese dicdef. Melaen 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Filipino Wiktionary (is there one?). - Splash talk 23:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete vietnamese dicdef. Melaen 17:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 19:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No other aircraft carrier has a battlegroup article, which itself is a transient thing changing most of the time. We do not have articles on the make-up of the Russian Northern Fleet, or USPACOM, far more relevant entities of transient make-up. Xxxxxxxxxxx 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 09:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Some local notice paper at an apartment building. Hardly of any interest to anyone outside the local area, but hey, this is an encyclopedia, and it's supposed to note all things in the world and not play elitist games. Besides, what's a couple of extra kilobytes hurting? Weak keep. JIP | Talk 17:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete e-neologism. Melaen 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete, Turkish dicdef. Melaen 17:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately WP is not a web directory and the page has an alexa rank of 1,904,646 [39] (doesn't meet WP:WEB) feydey 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Michael
The result of the debate was unanimous delete. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Photo album of residents of a crummy student housing complex. -- Russ Blau (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article seems to exist only to list external links. All relevant information is in Webzine already. Haakon 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1992) and Carlson-Sabelli, Sabelli, and Hale (1994) have criticized the traditional sociometric measurement for (a) focusing on choices and ignoring why choices are made, (b) treating opposites (choice versus rejection and indifference) as mutually exclusive categories or as the opposite ends of a continuum (i.e., love and hate toward the same person can coexist resulting in push and pull processes operating simultaneously), and (c) using a linear scale whereby choices are rank ordered from least to most. Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1994) described a sociodynamic approach that uses the traditional nomination procedure (with or without ranking) along with the measurement of opposite processes of attraction and repulsion via the "plane phase of opposites"--or less technically "the diamond of opposites"--toward a person, activity, or opinion (p. 162). The diamond of opposites can be used to gather data in writing or in action. To use it in action, draw a large diamond in the center of a room and ask group members to place themselves within the marked areas of the diamond in a location that best reflects the intensity of their combined positive and negative feelings toward a significant other.
In Carlson-Sabelli et al.'s (1994) scheme, the bottom vertex of the diamond represents indifferent, neutral, or zero feelings, and the top vertex represents contradictory, ambiguous feeling characterized by intense but opposite (equally positive and negative) feeling. Thus, the area within the diamond of opposites is divided into four quadrants: (a) bottom (weak feelings of both attraction and repulsion), (b) top (strong contradictory feelings of both attraction and repulsion), (c) left (attraction), and (d) right (repulsion) (see Figure 1).
According to Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1994), the diamond can be used to prepare interpersonal profiles for a variety of criteria such as harmony-conflict, approach-avoidance, and attraction-repulsion represented as opposite axes of separate diamonds. Respondents are asked to rank order their significant others in terms of how much time the respondent (a) wishes to spend with their significant others (ideal rank order) and (b) actually spends with their significant others (actual rank order). Next, they locate their significant others by marking points in each of the diamonds (harmony-conflict, attraction-repulsion, and approach-avoidance) first to indicate the actual rank order and second to indicate the ideal rank order. Connecting the dots within each diamond provides interpersonal profiles (for criteria of interest) for significant relationships, which can then be compared. Carlson-Sabelli et al. mentioned that their approach can be used in conjunction with the SNI (Treadwell et al., 1993) to determine social distances. (See Carlson-Sabelli et al., 1992, 1994, for more information on the mathematics of the sociodynamic approach.)
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
ad, nn site (5M+ alexa) Hirudo 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was unanimous delete. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. As far as I can tell, most of the content of this page is untrue (Google doesn't seem to back any of it up) and this is just a page made as a joke by some of his students. – drw25 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTICE |
Please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored. Please remember this is not a simple vote, but rather a discussion. If you wish the article kept, you should make logical arguments as to why the article should stay. Please add your votes to the bottom and sign them with ~~~~. |
However i was trained at the Royal Northern College, and performed rach 2 at the age of 17 with the Shrewsbury Symphony Orchestra, not the wildly exaggerated claims made by some of my students. I did help fund The Curry House, and own 40% equity in the business.
Robin has quite a following. Certainly he is an impressive force at running, i have seen his photo many times in the local news papers, and on saturday night i was treated to a magnificent performance of "The Symphony for Solo Piano" by C.V Alkan from the Smithster, he is one of the few pianists to master this composer, well up there with Marc-Andre Hamelin and John Ogdon in terms of tehnique and musicality, I really believe he is worthy of an article.
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism or protologism. Google gives hits but can't find anything related to this interpretation. Weregerbil 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - I have already wikified this yet it still looks like an advertisement. Adds nothing to Wikipedia. Dicdoc 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This page is an orphaned article, and there is no meaning with this page while there are already detail articles for Airbus A330 and Airbus A340 respectively. Spring Dennis 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (see "epitome of uselessness" -- but maybe it can be re-written in a better fashion). — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 12:07, Feb. 12, 2006
This is an advertisement. Delete it. - Corbin Simpson 19:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. This is not Wikisource material since its's not an original source text. The argument for keeping is not particularly convincing, particularly the request for expert-only additions. - Splash talk 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. At best, this is original research. By its nature this can never be more than pure opinion. JDoorj a m Talk 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to jury rig. W.marsh 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is a non-encyclopedic neologism. JDoorj a m Talk 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Tregoweth.-- Alhutch 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, less than 400 Google hits. --Last Avenue 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was unanimous delete, ignoring the joke vote. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No relevant information except self reference → Aza Toth 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
14:22, 9 February 2006
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. According to a google search, this word doesn't exist. Xyzzyplugh 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was unanimous delete without prejudice. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A yet-unpublished debut album. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. D e nni ☯ 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete -- BorgQueen 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not an english word, no reason for this redirect. Xyzzyplugh 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vanity redirect page, if that's the right term for this. Xyzzyplugh 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as neologisms. Technoligion gets 12 hits on Google (mostly trivial), Econoligion gets none. ran ( talk) 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete while misplaced, per WP:SNOW I do not believe it would ever survive the process at RfD and would be a needless use of resources. Without prejudice though of course, should someone want to recreate this and try RfD. W.marsh 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nonsense word. Xyzzyplugh 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Just adding this in an attempt to de-confuseify bots and scripts. - Splash talk 19:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Time to come clean. I've been here since 2003, and not all my contributions have been... stellar. All the stuff I actually made up was either discovered or turned in by me when I reformed. However, there are still a lot of things I think probably deserve to be evaluated as to whether or not they deserve to live. They are organized alphabetically; articles accompanied by an asterisk have already been to the VfD before, but survived.
The result of the debate was KEEP - I'm putting the result up here to avoid confusing bots and scripts. - Splash talk 19:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Case for: Historical trivia
Case against: It's an abandoned car lot.
Votes:
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Case for: A
retirement community, and Wikipedia has a history of creating articles for them.
Case against: May just not be significant enough.
Votes:
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Case for: Sort of interesting.
Case against: Listcruft.
Votes:
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Case for: Information originally compiled here; not available anywhere else.
Case against: Transcends listcruft; it's more like intelectual kleptomania.
Votes:
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Probably is a merge candidate, but that can be worked out elsewhere. - Splash talk 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Case for: Semi-useful.
Case against: Really not.
Votes:
The result of the debate was DELETE. I don't see the case for merging information admittedly made up. - Splash talk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Case for: Unfortunately, there really isn't one.
Case against: Good intentions here, I promise you, but pointless.
Votes:
The result of the debate was KEEP BOTH. - Splash talk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Case for: The one for real people, at least, is sort of useful.
Case against: Collapsing under its own weight.
Votes:
I'm big on lists, and some of them (such as List of fictional U.S. Presidents) have actually turned out pretty well. Let it be said that I'm trying, anyway. - Litefantastic 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was ... and someone fixed it. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
someone moved police officer to the crack addict article.
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a list. -- M @ th wiz 2020 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about an unfinished Half Life mod with no release date: non-notable and crystal-ballish both. - squibix (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable definition Avi 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deal with as copyvio the current version was a cut and paste from their website. W.marsh 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Is this about Sonica or Ted. Sonica MAY be notable, perhaps, with the downloads. This article shows little notability for Ted. Avi 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Ted Hamelin Jr. hails from Vancouver and is a ten year veteran of the industry. Ted brings a tremendous amount of experience to Sonica. A seasoned producer with a major label background and years of roadwork sharing bills with the likes of Our Lady Peace, Tragically Hip, Tripping Daisy etc; Ted was previously nominated for "PRODUCER OF THE YEAR" up against heavyweights Bruce Fairburn, Bob Rock and Stephen Drake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidgold ( talk • contribs)
Ted Hamelin wrote songs which have compiled over 250,000 downloads. The song "SOS" pushed Lincoln Park out of the #1 spot on the power pop top 100 in the world on mp3.com. All verified. There have been numerous Canadian television shows documenting this. Ted Hamelin was also nominated for producer of the year for producing the Tone cd "Brand New Lunatic". This indie cd broke the top 100 chart in Canada and was in major rotation on Toronto's #1 modern rock station the Edge. He was up against Bruce Fairburn who produced AC/DC, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue etc. Do Not Delete per WP:MUSIC looking at qualifications qualifies in atleast 3 areas. User: Calgaryman 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – Alphax τ ε χ 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page has no actual content. freestylefrappe 01:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was sp as per CSD G4: repost. -- M @ th wiz 2020 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No content - just a template. -- M @ th wiz 2020 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:Music. Google search for "'colin and the audience' -wikipedia" produces "about 86" results, but at least 2 of the first 10 seem to have been created by the person himself, and 2 more appear unrelated to the artist mentioned, Colin Veit, who does not have a Wikipedia article. Delete. Joel7687 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't know what counts as reliable sources in Barbados that I can use to verify this article or its notability. I hereby ask the community to decide.-- Perfecto 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Soothing R 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A google for "I sing praises" and McAlmon yields around 10 unique hits, the writer about 150, mostly adverts for other songs. No evidence to support claims of "top 40 Christian songs" (in the UK Graham Kendrick is I think the only living writer to make the top 40 Christian sings, but I could be wrong there). Publisher is redlinked, none of the supposed modern hymnals in which it's included are referenced. I call WP:HOLE. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as complete bollocks, due to both content and creator's past history. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Book not found by google nor on amazon.com. Another fine contribution from persistent fiction writer Paulo Fontaine ( talk contribs) Weregerbil 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable, doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. See article's talk page for an extensive discussion. Vary | Talk 22:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Verification Provided
On the page link entitled "FDC Details" you will find:
The Graceland Gate Cancellation adorns the reverse in addition to the circular date stamp of Jan 8,1993,including the Graceland zip code,38101 insuring the cancellation date.
On the "Testimonials" page you will find:
As for sources on the songs and notability, Mr.Saks has met the criterion based on the fact that:
In addition, a collection of works for the piano are made available on Mr.Saks site. The Fast Mothers site discusses the awards presented Mr.Ruble. In the City Council resolution Mr. Ruble is praised along with Mr.Saks for giving the city of Memphis,"A wonderful celebration of itself." Mr.Saks is more than qualified to be represented, and certainly worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. As to other details in the article, you should edit as you find appropriate, regards verification of his education and, among other items, his musicianship. As I am new to the forum (five days), I apologize if my corrections and actions have been misunderstood and out of keeping with protocol. I can only learn as I progress. Please consider allowing Mr.Saks the courtesy of this addition in this excellent forum. I hope that his honor will be upheld in any event.( Reneec 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)) reply
In all fairness to Mr. Saks and User:Reneec, verification has been provided on the "Talk Memphis" page. As a result, the subject meets the notability standards.:::-- 70.248.228.85 02:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Obviously these viewers did not read the "Talk Memphis" page thoroughly. Legitimate articles have been located in the Commercial Appeal archives written by verifiable sources pertaining to Mr. Saks. It is not necessary for Reneec to provide verification on the "Talk Memphis" page as it has been sufficiently provided.-- 70.248.228.85 05:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely uncritical article on alleged mathematical background for a cranky topic called Heim theory. See talk page for various comments to the effect that there is no such topic known in mathematics, and the unmotivated claims made without proof in the article run counter to well-known mathematical knowledge. The existing article on Heim theory seems adequate without littering the WP with a half dozen articles on subtopics which are not part of mainstream knowledge. This is an encyclopedia and it should focus on mainstream knowledge, not attempt to give exhaustive descriptions of every crank theory which has ever been proposed! CH 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
How dare you call this a cranky theory. Heim was known to Heisenberg and worked with Jourdan and Von Weizacker. Just becuase he was somewhat eccentric in eschewing the normal academic processes in favour of a hermetic existence does not give you the right to label him with repulsive epithets such as 'crank' - he was removed from that category in Wikipedia long ago. Familiarise yourself with the maths before shooting off your mouth like this.-- hughey 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Since I know "conventional differential calculus", I can say this comparison is wrong as it shows a misunderstanding of calculus. The article also says, "See Heim theory for details." Well, if the article on selector calculus refers to another article for an explanation of what selector calculus is, what's the point of having such an article? Since all the details are apparently in the Heim theory article anyway, a merge would appear pointless; I'm sticking with my 'delete' vote. -- C S (Talk) 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply"The approach differs from conventional differential calculus which does not place a finite lower bound on infinitesimals. In selector calculus, the limit of Riemann sums taken to infinity has no physical interpretation, as the smallest unit of measure is a metron, rather than infinitesimal."
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was orriginaly proposed for deletion (prod) with reason: "Unverifiable programming language that also seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE;". I object to prod as unverifiabiliti is not an issue. There is plenty of sources. Programming language is apparently work of a student of Institute of Informatics, Warsaw University Mr. Kowalczyk. He also wrote paper [52] about this language. On the other hand I checked database of ACM and it contains no mentions about the subject. Kogut is an experimental language. I am not sure whether it does not fail under no primary research policy. Jan Smolik 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect; those who support a merge can be bold and do it themselves. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic nonsense K erowyn 22:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Max is a character in some of the Bomberman series. Article title is mis-spelled, and Bomberman already contains more substantial information on Max. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-05 23:21 Z
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertisement and spam.
King of Hearts |
(talk) 23:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) WITHDRAWN per re-write by Ruby. --
King of Hearts |
(talk) 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (note it should be on WP:RFD but since it's here, we'll handle it) enochlau ( talk) 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nonsense, not an english word. Xyzzyplugh 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete — Fails
WP:NOT. Page is either a hoax or original thought of some type. No references given, no Google hits.
—
Bill W. (
Talk) (
Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 18:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lack of context, not yet existent, lack of significance RJFJR 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mind matrix 17:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Text of an interview with subject of article. May be a copyvio, but anyway it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia isn't for original sources. Anabanana459 23:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Made redundnat by Category:Diagramming software. The few red-links seem non-notable, but could be moved to requested articles or to the cat page if needed. Karnesky 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Trifecta: WP not recipe book, stuff made up in school, or advertising medium. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 13:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Where to begin... this idea of an "element X" is simplistically extracted from a pattern of "four atoms fusing together" which is NOT how fusion works. Any element that big would be so unstable it would fly apart in an instant. EGGS 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {T} {L} 12:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to pass notabilty tests at Wikipedia:Notability (music). -- Martyman- (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
don't delete, i have seen this artist's live performance, he is one of the most prominent armenian reliogus singers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.148.84 ( talk • contribs)
Why are you going to delete this biography, if this singer was to be deleted then all other singers should be deleted!
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Geogre Adrian Lamo ·· 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to pass notabilty tests at Wikipedia:Notability (music). -- Martyman- (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply