This seems like an autobiography with very little verifiable information. I don't think it is an asset to Wikipedia in any way. I vote to delete. Vaniac 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable comic. Prod removed with no explanation. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Although Aguerriero ( talk · contribs) did a good job re-writing the article, it seems AfD still isn't too impressed. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am the anon who protested (I removed the message because I didn't know how to protest -- I'm still finding my way around here, friends). I created the page because I wanted to give a link to the product download URL. If it violates Wikipedia policy, please delete the page. As for "strangely" not contesting the companion article, that was because I had not checked to see if it was listed for deletion.
Prod contested by anon (who strangely didn't contest the companion R4U Multilingual-English-Tamil-Telugu article). Advertising for non-notable product via a non-notable website. Opabinia regalis 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The only Zatch Bell episode article, has been on cleanup since May 2005 but nothing new has been added. I don't think the episodes are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Danny Lilithborne 01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Poorly formatted, nn store, advertising SM247 01:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It's reposted content of articles that were previously deleted. - Fsotrain09 01:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The user that created the page has a history. User:Motorox2 is suspected of being a sock puppet of User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate, who's discussion page [2] shows that this is a repost of patent nonsense that's previously been deleted, see Cluff of a bird Dairy Products, Clauth of a bird dairy products. -- MZMcBride 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, only 1 ghit in the described context SM247 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This guy does not want an article on himself in Wikipedia, and so we should not have one. Please don't vote for keep based on notability, because notability has nothing to do with it. It should be deleted because this guy doesn't want an article. Houston, Texas 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, information is already listed on the main Celebrity Fit Club page. Ckessler 02:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, information is already listed on/has been merged with the main Celebrity Fit Club article. Ckessler 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, information is already listed on main Celebrity Fit Club page. Ckessler 02:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, information already listed on main Celebrity Fit Club page. Ckessler 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied. -- Golbez 08:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, suffers from POV problems, reads like an advertisement (which it probably is) and is kinda crystal ballish, and as for notability, well, it gets a total of two Google hits. -- Captain Disdain 02:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This was an attempt to describe a sub-culture of the jamband scene, it wasn't an advertisement; this is comparable to schwagstocks and /or the schwag.
Wild Out Productions is like a smaller schwagstock, Bonnaroo, or Wakarusa. But those events are listed in Wikipedia, why can't Wild Out be described?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Leaps ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was userfy and delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A class at a high school is not notable unless it meets some external standard of influence or notariety. The current article does not provide evidence of notability. Whosasking 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to speedily delete at the request of the creator. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I created this page, but upon recommendation, I've moved it to Comixpedia. This page should be deleted. – Gunslinger47 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was A7-ed. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Utterly nn and not even published by own admission; violates WP:MUSIC SM247 03:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, no official website or evidence of notability.-- Andeh 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not fulfill the notability requirements laid down by WP:MUSIC. — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no "New Confederacy." The creator's personal blog and website are not credible sources. "Neo-confederate" article covers this topic.-- Phenz 03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mere repetition of the speech - possible copvio? (I'm not sufficiently well versed in the relevant CR laws applicable to this document) In any case, should be transWikied if appropriate or redirected to the main JFK article, as Wikipedia is not a repository of transcripts SM247 03:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. It'll be a horror to maintain for others, and really can be best covered on subjects' own article pages. — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 03:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect Eluchil404 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mere dicdef of term - redirect to Prohibition or merge the one sentence of unique content if it is worth it SM247 03:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete for notability issues. Just as parents, siblings, and offspring of famous people need more than that to make it into Wikipedia, so too should parents, siblings, and offspring of famous racehorses. -- Grev 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied. -- Golbez 08:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable individual. (Sorry, Hugo.) — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by Sasquatch as "made up BS". Zetawoof( ζ) 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
IMDb search reveals no evidence of any such film; only a few blogs found via Google support this claim. The spin-off movie Wolverine is apparently on the cards, perhaps this is what the article's creator meant, but other than that this is crystalballism. SM247 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN. — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (speedied, obvious hoax) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax? I could not find any information about ths purported philosopher. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 04:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I am new to wikipedia and I posted this page. I want this page to represent our company What changes should I make to keep this page part of wikipedia reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN. — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied. -- Golbez 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fake episode. -- Caldorwards4 04:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, already listed on main Celebrity Fit Club page. Ckessler 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This was tagged, but the tagger never finished the job. I vote Speedy Keep, not delete. Apparently, the tagger doesn't think a US Congressman is notable enough to be in wikipedia, but a look at the user's contributions would indicate why he tagged the article in the first place. [9] Nobunaga24 04:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep; bad faith nomination. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I have checked many of Seckel's claims in the past and have documented evidence that he is extremely dishonest. This evidence includes proof of phony credentials and false financial statements. Because of this, we should not accept his version about himself. I welcome a genuinely neutral entry on Seckel, but this current one is hopelessly biased and is pure self-promotion. Many of the current claims are demonstrably false. By way of disclosure, I worked with Seckel in the 1980s. When I saw how unethical and dishonest he was I criticized this. He then promised to sue me if I criticized him further. Afterwards I obtained documentation from Cornell and Caltech that his claimed credentials with those institutions were lies, and documentation from the State of California that he made false financial statements about his Skeptics group. I also received letters from Prof. Pearce Williams and from Prof. Feynman's secretary showing that he is lying about their relationship. Some of this evidence is included in http://www.phact.org/e/z/klass1.htm, which is listed on the Wikipedia entry for Philip J. Klass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmciver ( talk • contribs)
I agree we disagree, and that is fine. I don't *disagree* with Seckel's entry, however; I know it is dishonest self-promotion: "...every Wikipedia article is expected to cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Articles that exist primarily to advance the contributor will likely be deleted." I apologize for lack of tildes: I am brand-new to Wikipedia. 67.20.104.67 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is advertising that I nominated for speedy long ago. It ought to be speedied. Chaser ( T) 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Does catching Barry Bonds' 715th ball mean you are criteria for an encyclopedia entry? Ethii 05:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep hmmm, but it's funny we have a page for
this snot nosed little brat
OSU80 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC) I nominated the other HR ball catcher Tyler Snyder for deletion too.
OSU80 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity KNewman 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the article has been blanked, and the remainder is vanispamcruft. This article serves no purpose other than to advertise a product. Richardcavell 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable vanity article TerraFrost 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus) The article is an absolute mess, IMHO but I discern sufficient notability that it's not a clear delete. Further a clear delete consensus has not been established to my satisfaction. -- + + Lar: t/ c 06:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to match criteria at WP:MUSIC Tempshill 06:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is half a list of quotations, half original research. There's no standard for inclusion--sources are incredibly diverse, and everyone knows that predictions often fail, anyway. Unencyclopedic. Grace 07:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. -- Nlu ( talk) 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I originally tagged this article with a {{ prod}} instead of going for speedy deletion (can't remember why), prod was contested (well, removed) so I guess someone won't like a speedy deletion request either, so here it is for AfD. Reason for deletion : a school band with no claim of notability and no song to call their own. CSD A7, fry this
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus) There is no clear consensus to delete here. Further I note that the organisation can be of historical significance even if the website is out of date. 1000 reps, 200 universities seems notable enough to me. -- + + Lar: t/ c 06:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be sufficiently notable, but author's hostile attitude (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liu_Yong-chuan) and unsourced promotional language makes me ponder about whether it's actually notable, and therefore decided to submit it to an AfD to see what folks' opinions are. Weak keep. -- Nlu ( talk) 08:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Okay, "delete" really, but when people say things like "that similar article doesn't count as precedent for keeping, because it was redirected", it's hard to reconcile that with an argument for flat-out deletion. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable contestant of Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition. Also, it seems that Wikipedia deletes Big Brother contestants. We made a so-called policy at Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition. Prod contested by an anon. -- Howard t he Du c k 08:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother#Precedents for similar votes. -- Howard t he Du c k 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
as could stand as it is. Yes his popularity stems from PBB, yet we could definitely expand the article considering much of the many references available, i for a fact has gathered a number of references and would be very much into updating and expanding his article, i think he deserves an entry much as Jason Gainza (who doesnt have his own entry) who, like Lee, was a runner-up finish, it's a feat almost, yes almost, to the extent of winning and i think it should be given credit, just as other first-runner ups. User:Cane_crew 05:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion without merge, since although everyone agrees it doesn't deserve its own article, no-one suggested where it belongs in the long and relatively cruft-free main article. I have Oblivion, in terms of notability the Courier is somewhere between the rejuvenating effects of cheese and the character creation beard slider. Anyone is free to follow the redirect back if they do know where the content should actually go. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination. Tag put on the article by Tijuana Brass a few days ago. Removing the tag is probably unwise. No recommendation from me. DarthVad e r 08:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete User:Blintz has been warned about his apparent repeated personal attacks in this nomination discussion. Such personal attacks and vexatious discussion are not acceptable. Although "Man Who Survived Suicide via Jesus" and "Boy Pet" are no doubt interesting roles, sufficient notability has not, in my view, been established. -- + + Lar: t/ c 07:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was This article is now a redirect created by the nominator moving the page. Please take this to RfD and/or CfD. Not a valid AfD nomination. DarthVad e r 09:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
All references and categories refering to the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway have been replaced with the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad. This railroad is referred to as a railroad, not a railway in all the literature. I corrected all the references and created a corrected category. george 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Failing any references of notability in the article, this is a textbook non notable bio. I was a student body officer once and am not notable either. It is true that student activists can be notable but this one is, in my view, not. -- + + Lar: t/ c 07:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A WP:NN student body president of the U of Ottawa. Only linked from the student federation page. Clubmarx 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Please delete. We can not tolerate highschool student council presidents to have their Wikipedia page. "Not-Notable". "DELETE". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillaliberte ( talk • contribs)
User (74.56.237.201) deleted the AfD notice before, now it is back.
The result of the debate was Delete. IceKarma ॐ 06:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a blatant advertisement Em3rald 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd like opinions on this one. She does appear to have had at least one book published (Trilho de Pó but I'm unable to determine whether self-published or not - it seems likely). The article was unanimously deleted from pt.wiki (which I think is usually fairly inclusive) as vanity - see [11]. An anon claimed in that discussion that she has books in legal deposit in the National Library and on sale in Lisbon but nobody commented on that. There are some streets named Fernanda seno but I suspect they are named after someone else.
The result of the debate was keep – Gurch 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I can not see why this page should be deleted. I has sat here for over a year documenting a well known journalist and businessman in the UK. As a result of constant vandalism the page is continually flooded with innaccurate information.
Cohen is well known in the UK link
Also those continually changing the content of the page appear to have some personal or other grievance of Cohen as they only edit pages relating to him or his work. —The preceding unsigned comments were added by Philsome ( talk • contribs) 04:54 – 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see any evidence this kid exists and the story sounds implausible.-- T. Anthony 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep per Royalbroil's evidence Eluchil404 11:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Google returns 288 results for the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Siarach ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It's not even that funny. Creative... but not funny. 0zymandias 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
as an outsider opinion, beleive it or not i've actually heard of this before— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.83.112 ( talk • contribs)
Google test = No results. 0zymandias 02:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
My history text book, 'enduring vision' gives a one line mention of this. 10:38 PM 31 may 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.83.112 ( talk • contribs)
As a history professor at the renowed Harvard University, I would like to acknowledge the relevency of this article to my current classroom teachings. To all of those skeptics out there, the Great Pony Famine did indeed occur, and left a large scar on the global pony population that is still being felt today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.175.110 ( talk • contribs)
A "one line mention"? You just proved my point. Please see WP:DP before responding. Oh, and as a history professor at Harvard, wouldn't you already know how to spell 'renowned'? (sorry, couldn't resist) 0zymandias 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of subject is in question; history of editors shows it to be largely autobiographical/vanity. Note that User:Musea, the main editor, has attempted to work with process and improve the article. I have informed Musea that he can use this process to justify inclusion. — Es tarriol talk 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
One wider concern is this - if articles depend on mainstream sources for verification, they will eliminate all entries whose notable achievement is to oppose mainstream art and media. Mainstream music press will not do articles on anti-band music. Mainstream art press will not do articles on end of modern art protests. Mainstream publishers will not do articles on zines or zine movements that oppose them. I think valid indie sources - if there are enough to fit the wikipedia criteria - like ULA or Zine World, should be considered as well as more noted media such as Artella, Texas Monthly, David Darling website etc. Musea 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is essentially an advertisement for a non-notable indy wrestling promotion in Ireland, I mean, they've uploaded the banners to the servers and make it look as if they're using Wikipedia as like a backup hompage. Saint-Paddy 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
do not delete--with a good editor, this article could make sense. Adambiswanger1 01:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I wrote this article and uploaded the banners, if they are taking up too much server space, I will of course take them down and leave it as a text only entry or with one picture, whatever is recommended.
As for non notable, professional wrestling is obviously not to everyone's tastes but it is an interest shared by many and very popular among internet fans. This particular company have a TV show and run over 40 shows a year nationally as well as having national press and media coverage.
I'd be happy to change or amend the article in any way that would make it more aceptable to wikipedia or its users. Apologies for any inconvienience. - Bncrew 16:07, 26 May 2006
I would be more than happy to change anything about it if someone could give me a few pointers. Obviously, if the pictures are taking up space on your servers, they have to go but I'll edit it down to more basic fatual information if you like. - Bncrew 17:40, 07 June 2006
In relation to the whole non notable thing, this company does perform more than dates in a year than 90% of companies in the Europe. They have changed alot for wrestling fans like me here in Ireland. I have edited down the article to exclude things that might seem like advertisement and taken the pictures off. Anything else that would make the article better or more acceptable to the wikipedia guidelines? Thanks. -
Bncrew 02:08, 08 June 2006
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, uncategorized bio with no claim to notability Paul 04:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No definite results on googling. The actor is not famous. Ferisin 09:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination by Klafubra. No recommendations from me. DarthVad e r 09:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a bit better now whats wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenane ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Doesn't belong at AfD. Take to RfD. DarthVad e r 09:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is an article on Ahmad al-Alawi. "Shaiykh" is a title, and doesn't need to be part of an article name; also, it's a spelling error anyhow (should by "Shaykh" OR "Shaikh" but can't combine both) Mark Sedgwick 09:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
NN website, Alexa not in top 100,000, and article has no useful content Goldom (t) (Review) 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus for Zooomr, so keep by default. Unanimous Delete for Kristopher Tate - Richardcavell 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't see that this meets WP:WEB. Spondoolicks 10:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a recognized clinical entity. Any theory of viral/environmental causes of diabetes best discussed within the context of diabetes mellitus. InvictaHOG 10:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong DeleteWP:NOR Furthermore it's rubbish. Dave59 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD G7. - Liberatore( T) 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a page i don't use anymore, and for which i can use my sandbox
Please delete it!
Reedy Boy 11:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. Article was meant to be a redirect anyway. DarthVad e r 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Badly formatted dicdef of a nonsense word - does anyone actually say 'drave'? Delete ::Supergolden:: 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanispamcruftisment. Delete ::Supergolden:: 11:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A big wall of text. Seems to be an entry about NASCAR, though with the lack of an introduction or paragraphs that can actually be read, it's hard to tell. Anyway, what we seemingly have here is a long stream of characters about something related to racing cars. Maybe this is a duplicate of NASCAR or Auto racing, I don't know, but I don't think we should keep that entry unless someone can make sense of it and write a stub Equendil Talk 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable or encyclopedic. Also, no reliable sources available for this. -- Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The page is an obvious vanity article intended to make the insignificant flash-film seem significant. Joffeloff 12:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nonnotable "artist" (the quotes are deliberate, look at the alleged art on his website) NawlinWiki 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator; keep as disambiguation page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafziel ( talk • contribs)
Firstly, this is an acronym expansion page referring to only one instance of the acronym. Secondly, it points to
Event Data Recorder, a page currently under threat of deletion due to copyvio. Checking the page history
there suggests that in addition to being copyvio, it is a suitable candidate for deletion as advertising. If the target is, then this disambiguation page with one item is as well. Please let me know if I've made a bad call here, but I suggest Delete.
Colon
el
Tom 12:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Nominator changes his suggestion to Speedy Keep & withdraws the nomination, per the arguments below.
Colon
el
Tom 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. If anyone wants to clean up the article, they can (and appear to already have) do so without an AfD closer's help. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded by User:JByrd as vanity, but at least the microbiologist entry appears to be notable. Hirudo 12:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax. Google shows 3 hits for '"Milites Christi" jiujitsu, one of which is Wikipedia. The arms shown are lifted from Malta and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Looks like conspiracy-theory garbage. AlexTiefling 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect. Note that as the article has been merged, the redirect must be preserved, in order to satisfy the GFDL, despite it being a pretty strange search string ... Proto|| type 10:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I have merged this article into Ben Matlock. I hope others agree that this was the right decision and are prepared to delete this article. Takeel 13:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, keep by default. I note that the German version has survived AfD. - Richardcavell 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Profiling article, mainly POV and yellow press style. Related article in de-wiki is also requested for deletion. -- EvaK 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as a vanity page. JonHarder 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Either "nonsense" or "importance". Or both. -- JennyRad 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as CSD G7 by Paolo Liberatore. DarthVad e r 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
undefined Reedy Boy 11:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Already been deleted: Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/December 2004 (1). Wiktionary will not accept this anyway Dangherous 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article doesn't look
verifiable, nor
suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The song is "unrealsed" and its claim for
notability seems to be that it's on some bootlegs. I found it via {{copyedit}}, and it also had {{verify}}, {{cleanup-date|June 2006}}, and {{uncat}}. I removed the tags for aesthetic reasons, and to keep well-meaning editors off an article under discussion.
Keitei (
talk) 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, keep by default. - Richardcavell 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article survived a "no consensus" vote on AfD. The primary reason no consensus was reached was because of the idea that a listing on IMDb made her notable. As the IMDb is an index of all persons, contrary to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it cannot possibly be a criteria for notability in this article. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirected to What If (comics) Computerjoe 's talk 14:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate article to List of What If? issues with less detail and context, presumed draft article
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vehicular neologism. Prod tag removed with no explanation. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Katie Holmes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Child is only notable for having famous parents. — tregoweth ( talk) 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm going to go ahead and be bold. Since we've already had community consensus on this issue, I don't think I'm being too bold, but if anybody objects to me redirecting, revert the edits and we'll keep going here. Cheers! The Disco King 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I thought that as well. It seems to be the practice with these kids; Zahara Jolie-Pitt redirects to Angelina Jolie, Sean Preston Federline redirects to Britney Spears, etc. It does seem a bit POV, but if we're not going to keep them as articles, we need to redirect them somewhere...I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe a note at the top, like "Suri Cruise redirects here. For her father, see Tom Cruise."? The Disco King 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnotable book that only gets 4 unique google hits: one of them is this page, two others are plugs by the author. — Xezbeth 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN band, does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC, appears to be yet another MySpace band Wildthing61476 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted and protected from recreation (CSD G4) by User:RadioKirk. Zetawoof( ζ) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a common meme. A comment on the talk page leads me to believe this may be an attempt to promote a Wii60 community. Optichan 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
* Transwiki to Wiktionary, merge into either Wii or Xbox 360, or just delete. I get 168,000 hits for Wii60, but it is nothing more than a definition. --
ReyBrujo 17:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was give it a rest, please. This is the third afd in as many months. It, like its predecessors, found no consensus. Please step back for at least three months before trying to delete it again. Keep-voters: the onus is on you to improve the article. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable collectable card game player. This article survived two AfDs as no consensus ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_St._Clair and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy St. Clair (2nd nomination)), but there still hasn't been anything additionally notable about the person added. One of the major proponents for keep the last couple times has also indicated to me that he has changed his mind and now believes St. Clair to be insufficiently notable. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
For now, the Zelda release on Wii is Twilight Princess; there is no reference to any other Zelda at this time. This is a phony article to generate traffic to a Web site, and should be deleted for all the same reasons it was deleted last year. Primarily, the "crystal ball" rule. The absolute earliest point at which this article should exist is when we have official confirmation that there is a Zelda in the works on the Wii that is not Twilight Princess AND when have at least one or two specific, verifiable facts to offer readers about this new Zelda. The Yar 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Spam article. Haakon 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research. The discussion on the article's talk page gives a pretty good summary of why grouping together all of the literary works mentioned in this article is inherently POV: many of them do not, in fact, depict pedophilia, but rather, abuse by people who may or may not be pedophiles. In addition, some of the works depict consensual adult/child sex, which is neither pedophilia nor abuse. I think that "pedophile" is rather like "terrorist": using it is almost always inherently POV. Finally, the article discusses many works by non-notable authors (at least judged by whether the author has a Wikipedia article) -- it's okay to mention such works, of course, but in this case, the majority of the article is devoted to them. Delete Catamorphism 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
One solution would be to cut up the first sections and put one line/two line descriptions under each work, but I feel it would be less useful as an encyclopedia reference. Surely the point of an authoritative wikipedia article is to answer firstly a search then to provide many links to whatever aspect of the topic the searcher is looking for.
Finally, we should recognise the views of experts. Carolyn Lehamn has just sent me a mail saying "It's a good list you have. I'm glad you're including both fiction and non-fiction as they inform each other. It makes for a much richer resource." See her OR on the topic at "Carolyn Lehman: Strong At The Heart" Tony Sandel
I agree with this comment - that there is "a real, substantive difference between genuine pedophilia and inappropriate relationships between adults and teenagers". The article is headed pedophilia AND child sexual abuse, and I have excluded the dozens of works that deal with adults and teenagers well past the age of puberty. There are, however, a number of borderline cases and I have included them where, having read the book myself, the relationship could be interpreted as being either pedophile behaviour and/or child sexual abuse. It's best that readers make their own judgement. Tony Sandel
If you want to be a universal encyclopedia you have to include everything. The bad with the good. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise in ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.85.117 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete Proto|| type 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Does not meet WP:BIO. There is no listing for this actor on IMDB and no information on this actor on pages relating to either show. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unmaintainable list of no encyclopedic value; also inherently biased towards a US-centric worldview. If people want to stay up-to-date on who's sleeping in whose bed, they'd be better off visiting a celebrity gossip site. If people are interested in whom a particular celebrity is dating, they are more likely to find the correct information in that celebrity's own article. It's hard to see what other purpose this list serves.
On the systemic bias front, note that a similar page not restricted to Hollywood couples is also up for deletion: see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Couples. —
Haeleth
Talk 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore( T) 21:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is rather pointless and the size is virtually unlimited. This doesn't even reach the level of trivia and will almost certainly lead to endless debates over content. Aren't I Obscure? 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is basically a POV fork of Category:Scientology, cherry-picking items favorable to Scientology ("1997-12 Thousands of Scientologists hold candles and demonstrate in front of Clearwater police headquarters, accusing police Chief Sid Klein of discriminating against Scientologists." -- why is this protest notable enough to make the timeline?) and slanting items in a notably pro-Scientology fashion ("the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association ... rejected [Hubbard's claimed "findings on the mind"] and later attempted to discredit his work and reputation." (emphasis added); "the High Court of Australia overturns Scientology ban, contributing greatly to the scope of religious freedom in that country.") At first I thought a timeline of the major events involving Scientology could be useful. After seeing this, however, I'm not sure it would even be possible to create an NPOV timeline. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied. -- Golbez 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article on NAKID should be deleted. It is just an advertisement for a business to recruit members. "They" have been spamming the Kickball article repeatedly with external links to their website and they are now trying to get around this by linking Kickball to their NAKID article via the See also, where they put their external link there. Wikipedia has a policy against being used for business advertising and this article should be deleted. Also, they are not significant enough to warrant an article. They did not significantly impact the sport of kickball as WAKA did. Note: This AfD is created on behalf of User:204.149.192.90 by H e nrik 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete Proto|| type 10:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like a pomotional piece for the company. Normally that could be changed without deletion. However, in this case I see no evidence of anything close to WP:CORP, so I am recommending delete. -- Hetar 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dont Delete. Its been updated. AND JUST BECAUSE ITS FAN FICTION DOESNT MEAN IT'S MENT FOR DELETION! THIS IS A PAGE FOR Star Trek: Hidden Frontier isnt there? User:cjpwes
Dont Delete it because its non-notable. I mean, my hometown Elba, NY is in wikipedia, not very notable. You have a lot of non-notable stuff in wikipedia, I mean, come on. If you want this to be the best encyclopedia ever, then make sure you have everything you possible can, even if it is non-notable. And you may never know. Maybe it will be notable someday. Look at Star Trek Hidden Frontier, Stone Trek, ect... Usr:cjpwes
What are you people doing? One Star Trek Fan Fiction page gets posted, and YOU PUT ALL OF THEM UP FOR DELETION! I looked at the pages, they are all thier for deletion. I mean, they have been there for over a year without anyone noticing, but now that this article pops up, YOU HAVE TO DELETE IT? How horrible are you people. I hope the administration at wikipedia wont delete them just because morons like you dont feel that things that arnt "offical" should be deleted on the spot. GOD (forgive me)!
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted Computerjoe 's talk 19:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What is this? There is nothing here that indicates any particular value or even what it is. If it is something it needs to be expanded greatly. God and a half 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Apocrypha Discordia deserves an article, and it has one. This article just seems to be an advertizement for "Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht", which in my opinon, is not notable. Excluding Wikipedia.org as a domaing from a Google search, "Ek sen trik kuh Discordia" gets 51 Google hits, all of whom are from Discordian websites or Wikiepdia clones. [30] The full title of the book, "Ek sen trik kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht" gets about 7 hits outside of Wikipedia, and only 3 of those are not from Wikipedia clones/Wikisource, one of which is the book's website, the other two are Discordian websites. [31] This part of the article reads like a typical Discordian hoax. This has the typical hallmarks of a vanity article. The vast majority of the links are to the book's website, Geocities pages, and Newsgroup/message board posts.
I've ben obsessed with Discordianism for a long time and have never heard of this book until I found this Wikipedia article. "Discordian works" doesn't list any other works, other than the Apocrypha Discordia, which has it's own article. Almost every person I know who calls him/herself a "Discordian" has written his or her own plagarism of the Principia Discordia and released it as an e-book. I don't think they all need encyclopedic coverage. If the book is "controversial", why have I never heard of it and why does it only get about 40-50 Google hits?
"Whereas Apocrypha Discordia is a collection of pieces from various sources, most of the material in the Ek-sen-trik-kuh was created specifically for the work. The book claims its inspiration came from a dream-vision that featured Goddess Discordia, her sister Goddess Harmonia, and their daughter, the naked Cherub Princess Shamlicht, who had hundreds of monkeys flying out of her butt. These were actually Bonobo apes, who gave their tales to Loveshade to first digest, and then to 'spread them far and wide, for digested flying monkey tales make great fertilizer.'"
Eh, I think Discordians could be finding something better to do with their time than writing Wikipedia articles for their books, and I don't think Wikipedia should be a soapbox for Discordian heresy! Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The reason the article that was just about Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia was deleted were as stated above--some people felt that it didn't deserve its own article/others did--the split on that issue leaned toward keeping the article. The other issue, the one that killed the article, was that some felt that the legal problems were a hoax/a few did not. The hoaxers outvoted the non-hoaxers, and it was deleted.
This article addresses both those things. First, the legal problems have been posted online since 2001 (the dateline on the links proves that; as someone said in their addition, this is admissible as evidence in international court, so it should count here). But if a hoax, an old hoax is still a hoax. This article says the claims of the legal problems have been made since then and may be a hoax, which is fact according to Wikipedia's guidelines. While that was a major part of the original article, it's relatively minor here.
Second, this is not an article about just Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia; it's about Discordian Works. There's a whole list of them, which could each have their own section. If they get big enough for their own article, they could each have their own article. Anyone can add something about whatever Discordian Work they chose--that's the point of this article. Should we delete this before they have a chance to add them? IamthatIam 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
In the original version of this article, it talked about two works in detail, the two Apocrypha Discordias, one of which still has that name. A lot of the hits for Apocrypha Discordia (which were used to justify keeping that article) actually refer to an earlier version of Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, which as somebody said was first called that just a few months ago, and The Tales of Shamlicht was added only a couple weeks ago, so of course it doesn't appear in many hits. (If you notice, the article that was deleted doesn't even include that subtitle).
Check the links listed in this article and you'll see that a lot of the hits for Apocrypha Discordia are for the early version of this work, which became Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. In fact, Rev. DrJon Swabey, who compiled the Apocrypha Discordia that still has that name, recognized that Reverend Loveshade had his own version of Apocrypha Discordia [34] (which became Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia) [35]. Check your Google hits and you'll see many more. Note also that in DrJon's argument to keep the article on his collection, he recognized Reverend Loveshade's Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia site as a major Discordian site. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocrypha Discordia
There is now a section in this article about Novus Ordo Discordia, and about Summa Universalia, so the article isn't just about two works.
I believe the reasons for suggesting a deletion have already been answered and corrected. I've taken the liberty of putting a Merge suggestion on the article A Discordian Coloring Book. It's been a stub since it was created, which is not surprising--how much can you write about a coloring book? But adding that article here would solve the stub problem with that article, and would expand this one to include an additional work. I think it's a great solution--but I know somebody will probably disagree with me. IamthatIam 05:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not quite sure if this person even existed. IMDB has no mention of an actress by this name in its listing for the shows she is credited with. She also does not turn up on Google. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Does not live up to WP:BIO. He has appeared in three films (two of them in bit parts, the other is a role in an independent film). There appears to be no biographical information, except for his date and place of birth, anywhere online. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Fails WP:BIO. Has played bit parts in a number of movies. Some of his most memorable roles include Salesman at Surveilance Convention, Butcher Shop Customer and Lodge Member. Certainly not a keeper here! Besides his birth date and place of birth little biographical information appears to exist. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept as rewritten bio substub. FCYTravis 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity nonsense
FCYTravis 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. I'm disturbed by the possibility that this discussion may have been influenced by recruitment and the presence of people associated with the company, but the article does seem to be considered keep-worthy in its present state. I assume the nominator's threat to take me to arbitration if I closed as keep is nullified by his later 'keep' opinion. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I suspect that User:Frogcat is a sockpuppet; the very first entry in this user's edit list is for Laserfiche. Edit here. Too much of a coincidence. If the vote for deletion results in keep, I will be asking for arbitration due to vote rigging. Alex 10:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2nd nominate (last March 11 2006) non-notable compnay, advert Alex 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing incomplete afd nomination from User:165.189.91.148. Edit summary consists of "afd -- A7 vanity, unreferenced (supplied link is an unvetted press release written by subject), grandiose claims, spamming multiple articles." Ricky81682 ( talk) 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect since it's a valid search term. Richardcavell 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I feel kinda bad nominating this one, as it's obviously a "Wikipedia for Kids" kind of moment. But it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Maybe one day we can have a 13-and-under Wikipedia so we don't have to feel like the Grinch? ;-) — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete both. Proto|| type 09:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This includes:
Contextless lists of objects in a video game. Possibly suited to GameFAQs, but certainly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Chaser T 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete non notable individual, vanity article. Violates WP:VAIN WP:BIO WP:NN WP:VERIFY Strothra 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Mailer diablo. - Richardcavell 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Funny (love the history section), but very, very nonencyclopedic. — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - close, but WP:V is non-negotiable - sorry - even if he did meet WP:BIO, which has not been established. All links are blogs, apart from the Wired article, which is misleadingly titled in its link, and is not about Chuck Olsen. Proto|| type 09:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete non notable individual. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Vanity Article see WP:VAIN. Notability not established in article. Unencyclopedic content. Strothra 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Chuck is actually a well-known online storyteller in Minnesota. He has received lots of regional news coverage there, and his Minnesota Stories project is cited regularly in journalism circles as a best-practice example of community-oriented citizen journalism. I think it would be a shame to see him deleted just because he's not as well known in other parts of the US or the world. Acarvin 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Mailer diablo. - Richardcavell 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Proto|| type 09:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been transwikied per talk page and is unlikely to develop further from its current state of semi-expanded dic def. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)...so merge as below— WAvegetarian• (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Author requested deletion. Mak (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Protologism, original research: Google shows no hits at all. -- The Anome 20:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Deleted page per this discussion.-- 67.190.190.226 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Apologies. Was not logged in.-- Briantemple 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Removed content but page is still present. Somebody with the power, please delete page.-- Briantemple 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto|| type 09:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure of this person's notability NawlinWiki 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.150.177 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete Proto|| type 09:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete-Article is about a relatively new band. There is a claim to notability in the article, but it is not enough for WP:BAND to have a chance encounter with Bono. I also don't see any google hits for anything besides their website. Gershwinrb 21:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete Proto|| type 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This page appears to be a vanity page. While a search of Amazon reveals she has indeed published a book, that alone would not make one noteworthy. Millions of books have been published by millions of people. They don't all rate a page on Wikipedia. Nothing about her beyond self-promotion seems noteworthy. The links to the various press releases are links to services that contract press releases from small businesses. Again, they all appear self-aggrandizing. Hebron 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
[ Dr. Emoto - Gary Null] [ Dannion Brinkley] I am a fan club admin for Toby Keith not an employee. Same with Rhiannon. So I need to delete mine and get my mom who doesn't know her to write it? I also Volunteered for Richard Sutphens Seminar - should I not write about him either? Michaelle 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Michaelle Michaelle 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WOW THANK YOU!! and noooo I am not being sarcastic. I truly appreciate the constructive advice. YOU have actually gave me advice. See, I was trying to add more because it seemed others said I showed little reason for her notability. So I just kept on adding. So you think shrinking it down will work? ((HUGS)) - Sorry I have been looking for a kind person to give advice instead of slurs - THANK YOU THANK YOU Michaelle 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE Michaelle 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Also I wrote in one of my comments that Barbara Melit and I were writing these bios. I have never tried to hide my real name or e-mail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelleWoodbury ( talk • contribs) reply
Link to Show Ad [ [46]] [ [47]] 68.1.122.211 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE 68.1.122.211 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The show is aired in Washington - yet also online.Even ABC is airing a TV show online now. You asked for proof of an author - I gave you 2 books and a CD. You asked for proof she is a syndicated columnist. I gave links and proof. You asked proof that she is a motivational Speaker. I gave links, proof and names of owners of several shows. You asked for proof that she works in the same group as people on here. I gave proof and links. You asked to see things writen by OTHERS. I gave you links. You said Prove she is a psychic. I sent you links and I offered numbers to people that validated her predictions while she was on stage.You asked I edit the page. I did and still am. One says add more links - another says shorten. I am thankful for all suggestions. The nice ones for sure. I have tried e-mailing others as I was - and was accused of harrasment even though I was not rude. I have asked for suggestions. What is next? You will not contact me for phone numbers or e-mails. What do I do next? 68.1.122.211 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE 68.1.122.211 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I, and LightStream Productions has worked with Rhiannon since 2003. The comments I made about Rhiannon Waits on our site and in her book, are my experiences with her, and are true and I stand by by what I wrote. I will put her ability up against anyone!! If anyone has a question, you may email me directly!! It is absurd to think Rhiannon wrote my testimonial nor do I appreciate anyone making such claims without checking with me! Mel Minitor 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Mel Minitor reply
I tried again, with the article remaining 5 minutes and was deleted. Can someone explain to me how this is right? Is anything I put on here going to be deleted? Michaelle 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE Michaelle 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay well I don't see a log now either but it gave the name Academic Challenger. But I will take your word on it. Since there was not a log - it must have been a glitch Michaelle 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE Michaelle 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) * I keep editing this - as suggested - but it keeps going back to the orginal. Any suggestions? Michaelle 13:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)MICHAELLE Michaelle 13:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o 5 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an attack article on a nonsense "holiday", with the entire article devoted to promoting violence. It isn't really a CSD, but it's only being talked about on minor forums, and should be deleted as soon as it gains unanimous support to do so. Harr o 5 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Note to Admin, I assume when you delete this (seems very likely at this point) you'll delete the redirect page too. Just a reminder. -- Andeh 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. I could repost this for further discussion, but it is just someone's essay. Proto|| type 09:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be original research coming out of a university study. At best, it should be merged with an existing topic. Harr o 5 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn; keep. DarthVad e r 00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Despite having researched the
Apollo moon landing hoax accusations rather concertedly, I cannot find anything on this person. As such I think that there are
WP:V violations at work here. Withdrawn. I will insert the external links and stub the article. --
ScienceApologist 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete Proto|| type 09:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Only notable thing is that she was a CBC reporter, but still does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Gump Stump 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was garbage. Just closed. No consensus, nor was there ever possibly going to be. This whole ungodly mess needs to go to arbitration mediation forthwith, where some kind of calm, common sense solution can be applied that everyone is happy with (and just after this, we shall all dance and sing for joy, as a beautiful unity envelopes all of Wikipedia, and those flying pigs wave a wonderful rainbow banner of love).
Proto||
type 09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Page duplicates (word for word for the most part) material in racial segregation. This is because it was merged with that article in February [52] and then redirected to segregation. It was orphaned (ie nothing linked to it). I deleted it because of that a few weeks ago. It has just been recreated today and a merge tag put on it calling for it to be merged with Israeli apartheid in an attempt to bury that article [53]. Delete or, failing that,merge/redirect with racial segregation which should be easy enough to do since the article's a duplicate. Homey 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
RENAME OR DELETE It seems more sensible to name this article Apartheid(political epithet) and place a disambiguation page in apartheid. Then every bombastic statement used to malign different cultures, countries, religions Serengetti tribes etc. can be placed in this article. The entire idea of apartheid outside South Africa sounds ridiculous. What other country inscribes the legal seperation of one ethnicity from another based on genetics and ties those people not fit, (based on some arbitrary norm of purity) to legally work as manorial servants? Unless South Africa Jr. suddenly rises up, labelling other countries as having apartheid systems is a form of slander or political epithet, and this article or its name has no reason to exist for that reason. Guy Montag 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neither motive nor their characterization, or analysis have anything to do with the fact that it is an epithet. The term apartheid is political and abusive because the term has powerful negative connotations associated with a past system of injustice that everyone is familiar with. When you label someone a "Nazi" it is to demonize that individual by drawing upon the negative connotations of Nazism.
Catagorizing a state or system as an "apartheid state", without it actually being lawfully entrenched apartheid as recognized by international law, gains an audience because of the inflammatory nature of the word. But then offering colloquial or anecdotal evidence is not objective research and wholly manipulative.
It is abusive, it manipulates and maligns by drawing upon an imagined system in one place and stealing the momentum of a successful organized movement that was once against apartheid and hijacking it to the political agendas of those who oppose another state or society. Using vague associations between their target states, these individuals attempt to gain the same legitimacy as the anti apartheid movement, by coopting their agenda through sophistry into what was an existing successful one. It is easier to organize a movement when the groundwork has already been laid down and the inferstructure is there, but the goal has been achieved or is obsolete. Hence, its a propaganda tool to malign and forward a political agenda through negative past association.
Guy Montag 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Until either a mediator or the arbitration committee can get this mess straightened out. As others have pointed out, this AfD is part of a much larger disagreement involving several articles.
We are trying to deal with issues #1 and #2 in no particular order, and one AfD at a time. It's not working. It feels like playing chess with the board broken up and the pieces in different rooms.
There are about a dozen long pages of Talk and AfD discussions for the various related articles, some of which are alleged to have been tampered with. There is a long trail of page renames and redirects, and allegations of all kinds of seriously bad wiki-behaviour. We have multi-day page protections with no end in sight, bans, blocks, and AfD discussions that end in no consensus. Desmond Tutu's name has being brought into the fray; thank God nobody's brought up Mother Teresa yet. Understanding all of this would require stretching out a very long piece of paper on the floor and drawing a detailed timeline. Mere mortals like myself don't have the combination of time and wikiwisdom to do that. Su-laine.yeo 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied. -- Golbez 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising (and user's other contributions are all spamlinks to this business's website; speedy was contested so I'm listing it here) NawlinWiki 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Extremely non-notable, lacking information. One of the most well known drinking clubs in Cambridge. Adambiswanger1 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transferred to Wikipedia namespace because I wished to preserve the edit history and I've got an idea for the text. Any recreations of this in the article space should be treated as db-repost unless actual sources appear. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Was deleted before as either original research or hoax. I list it here for AfD instead of using db-repost because there are more than 1 contributors. Zoz (t) 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- Chaser T 08:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Invented, non existence term. -- Albanau 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete I've heard the term and it has googles. But I agree with BigDT - it is going nowhere apart from a dictionary definition. --
manchesterstudent 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn given the book list below. Now *Weak Keep Still have concerns about where the article can go and hope it undergoes revision. --
manchesterstudent 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto|| type 08:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
seems nn to me. city councellor at most, which isn't enough. Also reads like a campaign ad. Bringing to Afd since prod was removed by anon user. Hirudo 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. It's word for word. I could put it through WP:CP, but god knows it's backlogged enough ... WP:SNOW ... yeah. Proto|| type 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Puffery-filled self-promoting bio of a minor music industry exec. Anirvan 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Blurrrgh. Nothing's going to be solved here - there needs to be some kind of informed and agreed consensus by the maths guys as to what is and is not suitable, which we could then apply. If someone wants to prune it down and merge this into Derivative, I don't think there would be many tears shed. Proto|| type 08:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Although it was concluded, as per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results, that there is no consensus as to whether reports of non-championship sporting event results should be the subject of Wikipedia articles, there is a general consensus by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League and other editors on the National Football League (NFL) articles that there should NOT be separate articles for every single non-championship or non-historically significant American football match. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is about a probably no notable single, and contains no sources cited Benon 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dont Delete I can see how this article could be up for deletion, but why delete the Star Trek Mirror Wars article. It may be fancruft, but everything about Lost and Star Trek could be considered that because it pretains to Lostties and Trekkies. User:Cjpwes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.68.99.197 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, June 6, 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was hot, hard, horny deletion. DS 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable Web site, Commercial abakharev 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Fl owerparty☀ 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm a fan of Smith's movies, so I hate to do it, but: Flanagan has played bit parts in Smith's movies, is nn outside that world. Ckessler 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The one-row entry for this award in the Civil Air Patrol article is just as informative as this. I don't see much more to be added to warrant a full article, and I don't see this as a stand-alone search term, so there's no point making this a redirect to the CAP article. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This artcle had had it's tags removed, I've re-instated them so people know there's a discussion Inner Earth 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7. -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 14:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a vanity article. I think his claim to being important enough to have a wiki article is questionable, but I will let others judge. Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Self-admits it is about nothing. — WCityMike ( T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE ( why?) ⇓ 23:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the 'nice' comments, but I'll only take the first one (on indiscriminate information) into account, and not much taking into account this encyclopaedia includes a version in Klingon (very 'existent' information, yeah). Of course you English speakers know it is NOT a word, a pretty obvious piece of knowledge many non-English speakers do NOT have. That's why I got the idea of including it, after finding 1100 occurrences in Google and many (non-English speakers) people looking it up in dictionaries. It is my only and last try to include something in here, after watching the encouraging and constructive comments you devote to contributions. Anyway, let me just share another piece of knowledge that you nice brainy English-speakers do NOT have but might find useful one day: lakhu lakhara, ben zonot.
The result of the debate was - No consensus, keep by default. - Richardcavell 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Del. What the heck is "rare disease"? The criterion is not specified. The list is neither definitive nor complete (as it says itself). The originating external link is dead. To have two huge lists (this one and the complete List of diseases) is pointless and useless IMO. A better solution would be to annotate the List of diseases, which is pretty much useless as well, besides showing 'red links' `' mikka (t) 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
rare disease: "Eurordis (European Organisation for rare Diseases) estimates that there exist between 5,000 and 8,000 distinct rare diseases, affecting between 6% and 8% of the population." So this list is kinda 6% of possible size. Severe maintainability problem because of huge duplication with List of diseases. By common sense the List of rare diseases is expected to constitute a VERY significang part of List of diseases. It is not,like, there are two dozens of "rare" diseases. Thefore these two lists essentially duplicate information. It is always maintenance nightmare, especially keeping in mind their enormous sizes.
To put my keyboard where my mouth is, I vouch to start marking "rare diseases" in the List of diseases. See, e.g., how I did it in the (missing until now) sublist List of diseases starting with a non-letter (and suggest a better name, if possible). By the way, if I try to put more than two inline named references (syntax: <ref name=NIH> ), the referencing breaks. If anyone knows what happens, please advise. Is it a bug or my ignorance? `' mikka (t) 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as hoax DS 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The entire content of the article is "Lucas Crowson is the character who is first seen when driving into Toon Town in the popular movie, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" Unfortunately, I don't think this meets the speedy deletion criteria, since it's rather obviously non-notable. I'm also not at all sure that the article has anything to do with reality; searching Google for "Lucas Crowson" gets less than a dozen non-related hits, which either underlines the lack of notability or indicates that this is a hoax. (Otherwise I'd just do a redirect, but as the latter seems rather likely, there would be no point in that.) Either way, I don't think this has any place in an encyclopedia. Captain Disdain 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Fl owerparty☀ 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, does not meet WP:Bio MilesToGo 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, does not meet WP:Bio MilesToGo 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep – Gurch 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Includes: NHL players A, NHL players B, NHL players C, NHL players D, NHL players E, NHL players F, NHL players G, NHL players H, NHL players I, NHL players J, NHL players K, NHL players L, NHL players M, NHL players N, NHL players O, NHL players P, NHL players Q, NHL players R, NHL players S, NHL players T, NHL players U, NHL players V, NHL players W, NHL players X, NHL players Y, NHL players Z and List of every NHL player.
The page serves principally to promote a copyrighted website (HockeyDB), which has considerable usage restrictions and advertisements. I'm not bothered by 'listcruft' but all those links bother me. I'll put 'A' in as a test case but I'll mention that B through Z won't be far behind if you agree with me.
Richardcavell 01:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As pointed out below by Resolute, the reasons for my original nomination are now dealt with. I continue to nominate A and now nominate B through Z, to allow the AfD to run its course. -
Richardcavell 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Debate closed as Speedy delete by Pschemp ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), appealed on WP:DRV#National Hockey League player lists. Reopened to let AfD run its course. Closing admin: please allow one extra day for formation of consensus to allow for this being marked closed for most of today. Just zis Guy you know? 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply