The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 (e) 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a crystal ball, it even says in the article that no release date or even a production start date is known at this time. The two external links are not useful nither Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Aside from that, Steve Oedekirk has every intention of finishing his trilogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.172.31 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 (e) 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, asserts copyright. Prod'ed, tag removed by anonymous contributor. Accurizer 00:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 (e) 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Fairly non-notable. Granted, some of the performances its hosted are notable, but that doesn't mean that every place that these people visit becomes notable. Will withdraw if notability is asserted Hobbeslover 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (and cleanup). — Fire Fox 10:14, 29 May '06
Not notable -- only 425 ghits. hello, gadr e n 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
As the author of this article, I did not intend it to be a Pulitzer winning biography, but this artist has been in Puerto Rican spotlight for many years, she is not a full scale celebrity even by Puerto Rican standarts ( those standarts are very high at the moment with artists like, Daddy Yankee, Ricky Martin, Jennifer Lopez, Benicio Del Toro, Roselyn Sanches ect. ). My primary language is not english pardon my inproper usage of some words and syntax mistakes. The image is a scan from a weekly magazine this current issue is out of regulation and is about 7 years old, if another image is needed I can provide an original photography, which is purely free of any comercial attachment. Deciding if this artist is notable seems purely subjective, I had the impression this was frowned upon in this project. I did not copy paste this, most of this information I gather from magazines I currently own. My writing is being harshly scrutinized and there are many grammar errors in the posts critizising mine, I do expect we are all adults, and I can take critizism of my grammar, and syntax but there are better ways to come across without making mockering of my composition. Thank you for your time.
The image I provided is not a collage it is a scan of a page inside a magazine, that current magazine is out of print, it is not available comercialy, I found the scan in the internet, sorry if I misunderstood the image policy, I have original photography a photographer friend of mine took, that I can upload if necessary. - sorry for misunderstanding - -- zetback 06:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Sasquatch t| c 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Google search. Neologism. Beno1000 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Offensive hoax, author deleted speedy and hoax tags w/o explanation NawlinWiki 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus = keep. — Fire Fox 10:22, 29 May '06
![]() | 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}} . |
Deleting this page would be an internet abortion and travesty on par with the attempted systematic genecide as witnessed in Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.130.42.232 ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2006
Nonsense, unverifiable claimes about what his childern can and can not say. JohnM4402 01:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Before anyone goes about deleting the AfD tag, please note the following Wikipedia guideline "You must not modify or remove the AFD notice. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion
Another note is that it is Wikipedia Official Policy that "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
This and all other ticket pages should be KEPT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.213.243 ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2006
Please Note The man (JohnM4402) leading the charge for the deletion of the Bob and Dan pages is a fan of Randy Galloway, who broadcasts from the rival sports radio station in Dallas. Unite, P-1's, because this man works for the enemy!-- Monosylab1k 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I propose this article be deleted. A quick search on Google for "Apple Bowl Stadium" reveals multiple articles on various wikis that contain the same text. It is clearly spam. Mikesc86 02:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Nick here published one book, "Detention" on PublishAmerica, an awful "vanity mill". Detention is available on Amazon [1], and its Sales Rank is 1,998,267, which is dreadful. The 1st paragraph of the article is pure vanity, and the 2nd paragraph of the article is a copyvio from Amazon. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merged and redirect. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Improperly formatted AfD. Fixing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Article lacks much notable content. And I'm being nice to you by using AfD; most cases it would be CSD. -- Alicia Lindgren 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Fire Fox 10:23, 29 May '06
This doesn't seem even remotely necessary. If someone could come up with workplace games, maybe it would be worth keeping, but right now it barely qualifies as a dictionary entry, let alone Wiki. Devotchka 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Fire Fox 10:23, 29 May '06
Notability. Does someone having a webpage suddenly make them important enough for an article?
The result of the debate was Delete. If the author wants this to be userfied, I'd be willing to undelete this article and copy it into her userspace. Please ask if you want me to do this. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Not 100% sure, but this looks like "paste in and edit so it's less an advertisement". The author appears to be the editor of the book (at any rate the same name as listed on the cover of the book). This reads like a big marketing spiel and not an encyclopedia article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JByrd ( talk • contribs)
I am the author and I took parts from my book about cause marketing and put it in wikipedia - I spent over 18 months researching and writing the book. If it looks like a cut and paste - what's wrong with that if the information is legitimate? Jocelyne Daw ( User:Jocelyne Daw)
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page and userfy Dredscott 02:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable web design firm, the article fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP - blue 520 02:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Assuming all that's in this page is true -- it's a show pitched to the Cartoon Network, that got rejected, and only a pilot was made and unaired, and nothing else came of it. Not notable at all. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning to merge. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems very NN. Author of the page admits he works there in his profile. Devotchka 03:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - dicdef. Although this was kept last time - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vainglory - nothing has happened to it since. It is uncategorised. Mais oui! 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. — Fire Fox 10:26, 29 May '06
Non-notable organization, article is somewhat comprehensive so discussion on AfD seems appropriate. Gail Wynand 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 (e) 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
4 Ghits TOTAL and the only one that seems relevant is the Wikipedia entry itself. NN. Devotchka 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per author's request-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy deletion with this note: "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. Author admits to being the owner of said "company" (read userpage), and does nothing to assert notability in article." This is not according to my interpretation of policy a speedy criterion, though it certainly is a valid deletion criterion. Listing here for review. No vote. Chick Bowen 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding |
Non-notable BBS whose only claim to fame seems to be as a plaintiff in an obscure state court case. Wikipedia is not a BBS registry. Gail Wynand 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The whole point of appreciation here is that Grex, like Arbornet or SDF/freeshell.org: Super Dimension Fortress or nyx.net and few others are Unix shell providers, free for anybody anywhere (membership fees are optional and allow to get a better set of commands/functionality).Very few community-run unix systems have been existing so long, allowing people to get familiarity with what is the most important operating system in the internet infrastucture and history.See for instance the links in the Google subcategory: Internet > Access Providers > Unix Shell Providers > Free Shells or the Dmoz one: [5] The BBS software/service is just a part of these systems, contrary to the full dedicated Bbs. The "Non-notable BBS" characterization stated as motive for deletion is a very narrowed point of view. AntonioB 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable online gaming league. Following the link to their official website in the article results in "This URL is Not Currently in Use." If you look at RBI2k6 you can see that they plan individual pages for each of their teams, for their stats, schedule, the list goes on and on. All of these fail every aspect of WP:WEB and it should go without saying that Wikipedia is not a free web host. -- Hetar 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, institutional self-promotion, NPOV, and also not notable RobLinwood 04:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
See Talk:Gabe Zander for all the pertinent research...This appears to be an article about a pretty non-notable musician. Zander's only chance at meeting WP:MUSIC is that he's the co-founder (a claim I've not found verified) of a barely-notable band, the Oi! Scouts, and he's been featured in a single article for Nashville Scene (which presented him as a street artist trying to break into the scene). No discography found other than 1 demo. I think the Oi! Scouts might be worthy of an article, and I'm surprised there's no article for Nashville Scene, but I believe this article should be deleted: subject not notable and claims not verifiable. -- Scientizzle 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A nn church in Florida. Has had a lack of notability template on it for almost a year and no edits have been made. There is no information about why this church is notable or encylopaedic, and it only gets 800 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to speedily delete. From Friday, the admin who deleted article: The comic was created by a user named xbox_xpert14 and hosted on the Gmod forums. The creator of the series never finished the series, only getting to episode 4 before stopping production. I am closing this on his behalf. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 09:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, defunct webcomic. Audience seems limited in scope to a single forum, and it doesn't sound like it had a very long run. As well, the article actually seems to contain the whole of the webcomic, which certainly has to fall under one of those categories of what the Wikipedia is not. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blogger/journalist. Crystallina 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a nn church in Bristol. Gives no information about why this church is notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia. Only gets 336 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A nn article about a church in Enland. No information about why it is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. It only gets 59 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An nn article about a church in Sydney. It contains no information about why it is in any way notable or encylopaedic. Only gets 149 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An nn church in England. Contains no information about why it is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 50 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an historic building in Chipping Campden, and needs expanding dvc214 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning to keep. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about an nn church or religion, it doesn't quite say. Contains no information about why this sect is in any way founded, or if it has any contemporaries or current following, only that it was founded. It only gets 235 Google hits, of which Wikipedia is the first. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about an nn religious book. Contains no information about why the book is notable, and almost the entire content is an ad. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Basically an advertisement for an nn religious book by a small sect. Gets only 268 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. vanity page; nn hence unverifiable. -- MishaMisha 05:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-sourced, POV article about an nn person. Has had a template askign for sources for nearly a year with no further edits. The person in question only gets 379 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, even after discounting the many new users and anons. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding |
Advertising campaign is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, or even a mention in another article. Google search on +"man laws" +flynn +renteria (the latter two being characters from the commercial) gets one hit only - the Wikipedia article. [6] Might it become notable? Perhaps, but WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not_a crystal ball. Шизомби 05:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It should be noted that it would probably be more appropriate for this article to be entitled 'Man Laws' instead of 'Man Law'. That error is my own. Kershner 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
comment: The first nomination was for yet another, equally nonnotable sororyty. The vote was delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeta Sigma Phi.
My vote is delete solely on principle. I think the NYU article should have persisted since they were around before the USC sorority and it has the potential to be a useful article for women wanting to join sororities at NYU. Regardless, the NYU article was deleted on the grounds that the sorority was not notable on the national level. Likewise, the USC sorority is no more national than any other sorority or fraternity with just one chapter.
The result of the debate was Keep, but expand. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A sub-stub about a nn person. No information about why this person is notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about an nn religious figure. Has no sourcing, appears to be a copyvio, and has no information about why this person is notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- Longhair 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about an nn religious splinter group. Contains no information about why this group is important enough to be notable or encyclopaedic. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Creator removed a prod and two CSD tags, so brought here for discussion. Appears to miss WP:MUSIC, no cites, no indication of being signed. Delete Tony Fox 05:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about an nn church in Liverpool. The article mentions that at some point the church changed from one form to another, but gives no specifics. No information about why this church is encyclopaedic or notable. Only gets 518 Google hits, most of which are for a hospital. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
We have Category:Industrial musicians, do we need this too? -- stubblyh ea d | T/ c 05:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about an nn church in maryland. Contains no information about why this church is in any way notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 311 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Mostly a copyvio. Delete RN 08:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Commercial link Spam promoting two websites. Alas! CSD doesn't include spam!! So, I'm listing them here in Afd. -- Ragib 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, 9 hits on google, 1 repeat, 1 non-english Crossmr 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
JA: I said only that "I don't remember hearing [it] under this exact name", and though that may speak only to my memory, cog.sci folks can tell you that people in general are better at remembering the gist of information content than they are remembering the incidentals of a particular syntactic utterance. Plus, I know all sorts of heuristics and theorems and stuff that have different names in engineering or psychology than they do in mathematics. And then, of course, others have already testified to the eponymous Dr. Hickam being immortalized in reputable sources. If you review the pages on William of Ockham and Ockham's razor, you will note that it is customary practice in this area to attribute a historical accumulation of interpretations, and even the sediment of subsequent syntax to the legendary harbinger of a distinctive idea, even when these glosses and not a small measure of pure shine have yet to be found among his or her works, but are only asserted to share its spirit. Funny though, I do remember the damn well part, and will insist on its being restored for the sake of idiomatic accuracy. Jon Awbrey 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable person. A google search gives no relevant results although does give some German websites, so could any german-speaking users can check them out? Anyway the talk page discussion shows some people have already tried to find references but have failed to get any. If references are so hard to come by probably person is non-notable. Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 06:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe that
Power supply would best be titled
Power supply unit; this redirect page needs to get out of the way so that
Power supply can be moved. ~
Booyabazooka 06:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Alright, this nomination is withdrawn, because there's way too much confusion over it. I thought this would be a simple task. I'm relisting this as a requested move, as that's probably where it should have been in the first place. ~ Booyabazooka 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vandalism, patent nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
These three articles do not seem to refer to anything but the fantasy of their author. Conscious 06:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, article underwent an extensive rewrite throughout the course of this AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
slang term for sexual intercourse, apparently created just to link some spam page. It should be a redirect bogdan 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
slang term for masturbation, apparently created just to link some spam page. It should be a redirect bogdan 07:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by Mailer diablo. Sango 123 (e) 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like original research. Conscious 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, closing early per WP:SNOW. 26 deletes, 2 clearly valid keeps, 1 kind of fuzzy keep and a sack of falsified sock puppets make a tasty stew that serves no purpose. RasputinAXP c 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Made-up baseball team, from what seems to be a made-up book (at least, its title gets zero Google hits).
See also 2009 MLB Playoffs (now speedy deleted and protected) and 2009 MLB Postseason (its re-creation), by the same author. Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Since the only author requested deletion, I deleted the article and am closing this nom early.. PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Thought about speedying it, proded instead, prod removed and now we are here. Only original research (and is highly speculative) and poorly written. Hardly seems notable, Karmouche+surname gives only 13 hits. If someone wanted to create a proper article, they could start this from scratch without losing much/anything. PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 08:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Bogus sociological article about sex among the elderly. When asked for references to this neologism, response has been to put up a citation to scholarly journal -- as if sociologist would use a boy's junior-high phrase -- and to slap a "vandalism" warning on my talk page. Calton | Talk 08:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
12:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Tagged as speedy - maybe it is. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC (one album, no mention of label etc.) RN 08:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sports group, vanity, deprodded Koffieyahoo 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by MONGO. Sango 123 (e) 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Likely a hoax (see page history and also Billy Collins article), but listing this here before deleting and blocking the creator, just to be sure. Found zero outside Wikipedia Google hits for query "Billy Collins" Jestina. Delete. Also delete Jestina for Lillian for lack of other content than verbatim poetry/lyrics. jni 09:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy A7 Delete RN 09:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed as to whether the page should be kept of deleted.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I found this orphan AFD, so I'm making sure that it's listed properly, but I also feel that it should be deleted because Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. GeorgeStepan e k\ talk 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
- -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Web site design uk ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 May 2006.
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A quixotic movement, affiliated to one which is barely notable, and a movement which scores a whopping 275 ghits, including Wikipedia mirrors. Which are near the top. This is essentially another example of the traditional counties movement pushing their POV. Just zis Guy you know? 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty Club Ydam 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Unknown in the medical community, non-medical term, violates
WP:OR,
WP:NOT, copyvio,
[32] is unencyclopedic and Wikipedia should not list all possible idiosyncrasies posing as medical condition/therapy. Or is it an advertisement?
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton 11:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty Club Ydam 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable university sports team, plus precedent for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh University Shinty Club Ydam 11:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertisement. I caught this article months ago on RC Patrol and edited, wikified and tagged it as needing cleanup and references. Since then nothing has been done except to make it more blatantly into an advert. Hasty Delete Zunaid 11:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
bordering on patent nonsense, probably original research, link looks like advertising... the works, really! Happy-melon 11:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
nn video game fancruft. The search Prophet-Elite war Halo (without quotation marks) gets a massive 34 hits on google AMorris (talk)● (contribs) 11:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
New DAVAR freeware page was created. Delete this old article so it is not duplicated. ValenteM 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Earlier deleted via WP:PROD, then contested and restored. The reason for its deletion still stands: it's an apparent neologism with no sources and none that appear on Google. Most hits for "Naismith family" relate to his literal family. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, Wikipedia:No original research etc. Delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising article for non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Originally listed for Afd on 18th May by Anon user after prod on 10th May. Peripitus 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Modified nomination comment: this was created by a vandal and looks like a prank or spam for a minor hotel
[34], but please note Bduke's comment below: it seems pretty old (founded 1887) and may have some local historical significance to Melbourne. Presumably just a form of spam. Seems like a completely insignificant hotel. The author,
Privacypolicy (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log), who has also vandalized other articles, has repeatedly removed an {{importance}} tag from the article, and a request on his talkpage to explain the importance of the hotel was just blanked without comment.
[35]
up+land 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The function of this list is handled more effectively by the categories Category:United States military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison and Category:American Iraq War veterans. Keeping the list simply asks for it to stagnate. Kcordina Talk 12:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 08:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination. Conscious 13:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I am requesting that this article is deleted.
It might be thought that I have something against the translation since I have put a large amount of effort into the article describing why I believe the translation is a bad translation, but I fully support articles on notable bad translations, such as the Jehovah's Witness official translation, but I do not support articles on extremely non-notable translations, and whether it is a good or bad translation is irrelevant. In someways it makes me sad if my "criticisms of the translation" part of this article go (which I think is a good rebuttal of the translation errors made), but the real problem with this article is that it is just self-promotion. Brusselsshrek 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was it's already been merged and made into a {{ R from song}}. — May. 24, '06 [18:22] < freak| talk>
Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusselsshrek ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy A7 DELETE RN 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Skeezix1000 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable video store. Does not meet the criteria in WP:CORP. Skeezix1000 13:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this page is practically vandalism. Possibly another attempt to reclassify nu metal bands so the author can try to pass of their tastes as more crdible. I have never heard this term used in this context, it has almost no links, it is poorly explained and devoid of information. Switch 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This article does not describe a traditional or widespread Buddhist practice, but is the invention of one person; it is unverifiable (all mentions on the web point back to this article) and there is no evidence that anyone actually uses it. This makes it a subject which is too trivial for Wikipedia. The username of the person who created this article is also verifiably linked to that of the stated author of the text [37], suggesting that this is a vanity project. The introduction to the article also gives the false impression that this is a generally used Buddhist text, which is not the case. RandomCritic 13:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This software has been in "limited alpha" for more than a year. The website tracking the project, http://www.pocketg2.com/ is stagnant. Its forum has less than 200 posts. Mikeblas 14:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. bainer ( talk) 09:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The only argument in this deletion debate was notability. Those in favour of deletion raised the argument that the article did not meet
WP:BIO (an argument made without qualification), and an argument that card players generally are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Conversely,
IdahoEv made a comprehensive argument about the subject's notability and prominence within his field.
In my opinion, the "keep" argument was by far the most persuasive and outweighed the limited and weak arguments raised in favour of deletion.
Delete this professional magic card player. I mean, really! 172 unique Google hits [38] which is very very few for a dude who used to be a "popular internet writer". - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
... for those who consider articles such as this merely "fanboyish", or don't consider the game to be a "sport".
Magic is played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and played professionally by tens of thousands. The Magic professionnal world championship has been held annually since 1994. Individual events have prize purses over $200k, the Pro Tour's annual purse is $240k, and the top pros have lifetime winnings well in excess of $300k.
Magic has all the trappings of a smallish professional sport: thousands of professional players, television coverage, player sponsorships, large prize purses, an international governing body, trade publications in both print and electronic media, and a Hall of Fame.
Magic should be considered the same as any other professional game/sport played for money, such as Chess, Poker, or Pool, and as such its important, famous, or influential players are eligible for inclusion. Given that many other games with professional competitions are treated like sports WRT WP:BIO (Wikipedia contains entire pages just for lists Go_players and Poker Players, for example), Magic should be no different. It is certainly newer than many other professional games, and perhaps attracts types of players some would consider "fanboys", but those facts on their own shouldn't constitute a basis for not treating it seriously as a professional sport. I would also note that there is significant and growing overlap between professional Magic and professional Poker; a number of Magic's top players are also professional Poker players, including Thomas Keller, Noah_Boeken, Jon_Finkel, and David Williams
As an international game, players like Zvi are visible to a wider audience than the typical US college sports player.
Phrases like these ("professional magic card player. I mean, really!" and "obscure non-notable fancruft") expose a fair amount of personal bias about what constitutes a legitimate sport.
Zvi in particular may not have won as much as some of the others, but was probably more influential on the game's evolution than any other single player. IdahoEv 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP — Wh o uk ( talk) 08:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
He sounds like a top bloke, but there's nothing to suggest he's notable, though that information has been asked for. -- Hughcharlesparker 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete (author request) Kusma (討論) 15:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as advertisement. Previously prodded...tag removed by author. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Friendlies are very seldom notable enough to have their own articles, and this is no exception. See also short talk on WikiProject Football and proposed criteria for notability on the same project. Delete and if needed merge content with a created 2005-06 in New Zealand football, like many other countries have. – Elisson • Talk 15:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't know anything about guns, but an article that starts out "No gun officially known as the Springfield M21 exists" has got a problem. From the orphan article list, not edited in 18 months. Note that it used to redirect to M21 (rifle) until this diff [44] pointed out that the M21 was not actually made by Springfield. Thatcher131 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Computerjoe 's talk 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was restored by DRV after community consensus determined that it was prematurely deleted while revising was in progress. DRV recommended relisting for further consensus, so here we are. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO WP:V Non-notable club, no references. John Nagle 17:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This is difficult, as the book does appear to be self-published and we routinely delete such works unless they are exceptional (usually self-publication indicates some problem persuading anyone else to publish it). However, the AfD for the book itself is not going to be a delete (I shall close it momentarily unless beaten to it) and this one is rather much on the edge of where we begin to consider deletion, particularly taking into account the preceding PROD/etc. So I think perhaps what should happen is a simple redirect to the book, which I will go and apply. This is an editorial decision, however, so it is reversible. - Splash talk 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was restored by DRV consensus, following a determination that the previous AfD failed to consider all relevant information. Please see the DRV discussion for a number of significant points of information raised about the article's subject. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I am finishing this incomplete nomination for professor Simmons (he left a note at the help desk complaning about how it's still around). For some reason he doesn't want to have an article on Wikipedia. No recommendation on my part, just bringing here for discussion. -- Hetar 17:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, bordering on "No result". This is an AfD of the worst kind where two or three editors simply continue a debate they were already having without getting any much input from anyone else. This isn't helped at all by the descent into namecalling, bold and capitals at the end. This debate is not very useful for determining any kind of outcome, does not lean clearly in the direction of a delete, and anyway the previous AfD is much more sane and useful. - Splash talk 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
web site will little value which is not worth having entry on Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JB196 ( talk • contribs) .
They look about the same.
Sir Fozzie - there are other notable communities (such as TSM) and someone did write an article on that but for some reason it was taken down. I also think that Chaser was right initially in that there isn't any evidence of any mainstream credibility for DVDR. The point is that its not fair for one site's entry on Wikipedia to be removed while another one is still kept even though they have similar statistics.
The reason why I reverted my copying of how to list the article for deletion, is because if you look at the bottom of your talk page, the categories "Articles: Listed for Deletion"? - That sentence doesn't make sense gramatically so I dunno what you mean. JB 00:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
TruthCrusader 11:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The SOLE Reason this article is even UP for deletion is because YOU have a personal grudge against it. Instead of being the bigger man and just letting it go, you are trying to take out your frustrations. The FACT is that Lance Storm did indeed have a VERY public feud with the website..the FACT is DVDVR IS one of the, if not THE biggest fan site devoted to wrestling on the planet..its gets MORE visitors and MORE Google hits than "The Smarks", which is a professionally maintained site. This whole process once again is a waste of time. TruthCrusader 17:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Yahoo: 17,800 hits for DVDVR Google: 28,000 hits for DVDVR Alexa: 1156 hits msn: 1105 hits TruthCrusader 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
JB196 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete and merge per nominator. Or more accurately, I deleted Podunk, moved Podunk (place) here and then restored Podunk to merge the page histories, as the nominator indicated some of Podunk would make for a good disambiguation header. Might as well give credit then to the authors of the disambiguation page, IMO. Everyone else then echoed what the nominator said. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a disambiguation page on which only one of the links is blue -- Podunk (place). The others links represent things that are fictional, non-notable, and/or minor enough to be placed in Podunk (place). I propose deleting the disambiguation page, moving Podunk (place) to Podunk, and then merging into that article the two or three of the red-linked topics which deserve mention in Wikipedia but not their own articles (such as the hamlet in Ulysses, New York) — GT 16:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
First of all, the term seems like a neologism. It describs the competition between the next generation consoles, or perports to, but mostly it's just a comparison between them so far. Seems like original research, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or soapbox. PROD removed without discussion. W.marsh 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- Durin 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Group of teens in Janesville, WI. No notability asserted, and does not meet WP:BIO. Recreated after speedy deletion; tag removed by author. I'm bringing this here to get a bit of consensus and to prevent the author to continue to repost it. Delete. bikeable (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Page describes a software product called, very confusingly, Designer(c)2006. Looks almost completely like an advertisement for designs generated by the software package; the package itself sells for $3500 (!). Google finds 3 pages linking to it, one an ebay auction of a design. Delete as non-notable advertisement. bikeable (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I see that this has been tagged for clean-up. Maybe it's just the way the article was written, but I don't think that this guy is really notable. Or should we have articles on all fairly successful university athletes? Maybe he WILL be notable, but I don't think he qualifies as such yet. Devotchka 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as per article creator's request User:Zoe| (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This was tagged for AfD at 10:06, 24 May 2006, but not followed up. So I'm continuing the process. And delete because it's junk that doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO (it was tagged for speedy delete, and the tag was removed). discospinster 19:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Recreated after having been deleted following a prod. Only eight Google hits for this term, the first being the now-deleted Wikipedia page, and a couple others being mirrors. Neologism. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Creator removed a speedy tag and went on to expand this article, but this band still does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. — TheKMan talk 20:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
signed original research paper--and a very poorly written one at that Gene Nygaard 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
nn forum. Can't get an alexa ranking on it because it's hosted at freeforums.com. There are also only 1530 total Google hits for "chao universe", and not all of them refer to this forum. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
nn forum, alexa ranking of 1,369,825, only 1050 total Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted -- Longhair 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Same guy as in the Ryan Jay Beaton page. NN. This guy sure likes himself. Devotchka 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Ezeu 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Frankly, I'm not sure this should be deleted, but at least it should be moved to back-end pages (or whatever that's called) as an essay or something. I don't think we ought to have an "ideal user" or even this page when we already have loads of guides about how "anyone" can edit wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't want to give anyone a reason to claim we are censoring suggestions, even silly ones.
Chaser (
T) 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Edit: Strong delete as bad faith per Fbv65edel. --
Chaser (
T) 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango 123 (e) 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Nowhere in this article does it say what exactly BSS is. (Searching Wikipedia for BSS - perhaps Bishop Strachan School, in Toronto). Even if some explanation can be found - is this really an encyclopaedic article? As far as I can see, it just seems like a waste of space - it's the equivalent of me listing everybody who lives on my road. In my opinion, this article should be deleted. CPCHEM 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Tawker 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
nonexistant character for nonexistant anime which might show up in 2010. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Not even a neologism. Only one Google hit, and not for this term. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Harry Potter fandom. -- Ezeu 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not such a notable event – an April Fool's prank of a Harry Potter fan site – that it merits its own article. Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles on each of its pranks of April 1. I have already merged the content into the articles MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron (website). Fbv 65 e del ( discuss | contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not really sure what this is, but "ITSMBOK" only has one Google hit, at the linked site, and it's listed there as trademarked. Advertising? Gibberish? I haven't a clue. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. Prod tag removed by anonymous editor. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, no alexa ranking, first person. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Was formally Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Island Census, merged back into Characters of Lost page and split off again. Unencyclopedic and not complete, believed by many users on Talk:Characters of Lost#Census split. Delete. -- Wikipedical 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Minor business in NYC. provides "Swedish Massage, Shiatsu, Polarity, Acupressure..." and Yoga classes at $15 a pop. Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verifiable. Medtopic 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a South African slang dictionary. Prod was removed by an anonymous contributor. The contributor's comment was originally placed in the article but I moved it to the talk page. Accurizer 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non-notable column for a "renowned" writer who I cannot find anything about on the first pages on Google ( [50]). Prod tag was removed by an IP. Master of Puppets That's hot. 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: The anon who removed the tag also contributed this--"The Reluctant Townie" is a smartass but shows promise in his writing. ;-)" I got [ 55 Google hits for +"Ryan Jackson" +"News-Gazette". Mostly from his paper. Does not meet WP:BIO#People_still_alive. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 22:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Ezeu 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Although I generally think that lists and categories both deserve their own spaces, this is nothing but a list of names. There is already a category which duplicates this list, and there is nothing here other than names. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
You people are no fun... -- Fluppy 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by DakotaKahn. Sango 123 (e) 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Adding in missing template at the top. My vote is below. Bill 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:PROFTEST. Medtopic 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Two participants to the debate are few, but the arguments are convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
NN game (only 1500 online players, which seems pretty small to me)--seems to be using Wikipedia to publish their game guide, walkthrough, etc. Devotchka 23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Tyrenius 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Fits squarely into WP:NOT, unencyclopedic how to, delete-- Peta 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Firstly, "Tall and handsome" is obviously not NPOV, and the article amounts to little more than an advertisement for an apparently minor (otherwise he'd have a real Wikipedia entry) radio celebrity.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as a hoax due to "wrong year of birth", which has since been changed. I have no idea about the (unsourced) content, but since "hoax" is not a WP:CSD, I am listing this here. Kusma (討論) 23:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango 123 (e) 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged as speedy for being a hoax:
hoax, see also Yuusuke Santamaria
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This page does not serve a purpose and simply a platform on which to push a POV. It says that there is a commitee that is working on a draft document and then concludes that it is a major failure. The creator has a history of attacking the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry IUPAC which is the only internationally recognized governing body of authority in this area and a history of POV pushing on pages such as Deleted:M/z misconception in which he argued against an IUPAC definition. Delete Nick Y. 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango 123 (e) 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a hosting service for class notes. I don't see it being a candidate for Wiktionary as it is a compilation of dozens of words (unless someone feels like doing a lot of work). I don't see a WP:CSD that seems to apply. Prod'ed, removed by original contributor. Accurizer 23:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Ezeu 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Paean to non-notable theory of NN book by NN author. -- FRCP11 23:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Even the voices to keep concede it cannot stay in its current form. -- Ezeu 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged as a speedy:
Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and we specifically don't want to give safety advice (legal concerns)
No opinion yet. RN 23:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete/redirect to 10,000 Days. -- Ezeu 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - not every Tool song is notable. Wickethewok 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, probably vanity. -- FRCP11 00:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, vanity - 960 google results, first one is this article. Moe Aboulkheir 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — May. 29, '06 [05:22] < freak| talk>
An article about an nn church in Montreal. Contains no information about why it is at all notable or encyclopaedic. Only gets 405 Google hits. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply