< January 30 | February 1 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete Shameless promotion of website. I had originally nom'd for speedy. The article author removed the speedy tag (see history). Although I now realize this probably doesn't warrant a speedy, the tag should not have been removed by the author. Bugturd Talk 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee
Delete, this has to be a hoax.-- M @ r ē ino 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Drdisque with the reason non-notable fanfic website hosted on free server, but websites cannot be speedied. No vote. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as spam/advertisement. The article consists of nothing more than promoting the "hilarious" Sternchat.com. I have not checked for notability given the obvious advertising nature of the article, but if the article is drastically altered to remove all POV/promotional material (which would pretty much delete the article anyway) I might consider changing vote Bugturd Talk 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as advertisement/spam. I initially nominated this for speedy, but I retracted it after more content was added. The additional content killed justification for speedy, but its still just an ad.
Bugturd
Talk 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain in agreement with unsigned comment below. The article has definitely improved. --
Bugturd
Talk 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote back to delete since it appears that the article is to be a list as per
WP:NOT comments below. --
Bugturd
Talk
01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Pokémon items. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:50, Feb. 6, 2006
Game cruft, should be at least merged into b:Pokémon before deleting. kelvSYC 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as essay. I did not try to read it. I made it to the point where the author states that it is an essay and placed the nom Bugturd Talk 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable club. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
High school bowling team, not notable. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 01:05 Z
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. Neglected article created by 24.11.91.246 ( talk · contribs). Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 01:06 Z
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nominator wants it withdrawn, no votes to delete. - Bobet 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Only episode for Everybody Loves Raymond series with a page; should be merged with List of Everybody Loves Raymond episodes (Seasons 5-9) Kinu 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Oops... didn't put 2 and 2 together. This should obviously be a Merge, not an AfD. Rescinding my vote (and AfD nomination, essentially). If an admin would close this and subsequently add the Merge tag, I'd appreciate it. -- Kinu 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, overwhelmingly. -- WikiFanatic 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable educational software. No assertion of notability/importance. 203 unomitted Ghits for macschool winschool. Neglected articles by Cybiko123 ( talk · contribs). Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 01:22 Z
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Neglected article by 24.7.64.55 ( talk · contribs). Traffic Rank for macmine.com: 2,434,058. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 01:31 Z
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity biography, looks non-notable. No Ghits for "lawrence miles cotter", no related obvious related Ghits for "lawrence cotter", few Ghits for "Blue Dawg Sports". Neglected article by 12.29.245.130 ( talk · contribs). Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 01:34 Z
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable search engine. Doesn't even have its own domain. No Alexa rank. Website does not load for me (times out). Neglected article by 203.186.238.142 ( talk · contribs). Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 01:37 Z
The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Biography of an author. His book has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,718,331 [7]. No assertion/evidence of notability. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 01:53 Z
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Google at 30 hits - Dr Haggis - Talk 01:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
"Spiritual tradition" with no Google hits. Neglected article by Maggiem1987 ( talk · contribs) (sole contributions). Delete as unverifiable. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 02:01 Z
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about a fledgling news syndication web site. It doesn't look like this site has ever been mentioned in the media, blogs, etc. so I don't think it is ready to have an encyclopedia article yet. No backward links in Google [9], no Alexa rank for news.rgmds.com. [10] Rhobite 02:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Personally I think that the article should remain standing or be temp. removed and allowed be re-posted in its exact entirity when it is seen on other sources. 68.196.163.237 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
spam. not notable. seem to have broken up (see last edit). google Derex 02:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Patent non-notable webforum. 467 registered members. No Alexa traffic rank. Neglected article by 195.10.45.155 ( talk · contribs). Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 02:08 Z
The result of the debate was delete. If this is even remotely notable, please re-write in a decent manner. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:59, Feb. 6, 2006
Non-notable usenet group. 22,000 posts via Google Groups. Neglected article created by 62.254.173.34 ( talk · contribs). Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 02:10 Z
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable IRC (chat) server. Reached 1000 registered users in June 2005 [11].
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A long-running geocities page with a name with zero google hits. I'm really sorry guys, I have to ask you to come back when your site is verifiable.-- Perfecto 02:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, solely at administrator's discretion. The current content of the page is principally a quote from Politics as a Vocation by Max Weber. It is prima facie NOT original research, so I'm not deleting it.. The Land 11:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research. Neglected article by 128.103.191.243 ( talk · contribs). Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-31 02:15 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This spamlink/website is probably not notable. Only 57 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Givemebeats.com". For the 1 external link provided, the Alexa ranking is 1,414,665, and 0 other sites link to it, including Wikipedia and its mirrors. Only 1 other article links to this ( Givemebeats, a redirect), it has only been edited by 1 user, and not since 12 December 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 02:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm renominating this page for deletion. This is the second nomination; the page was first nominated on January 22, 2006. The result of the debate was keep. The archive of the debate is here.
Why it deserves to be renominated so soon: Many people voted keep out of concern that the nomination was bad faith and a violation of WP:Point. The previous nominator nominated 18 biographies of people in category:atheists for deletion after his own articles on Christians were nominated. I count 8 "keep" votes in the original debate that cited "bad faith nomination" as a reason. Hopefully, this time we can debate the merits of the article.
Why it deserves to be deleted: Besides being the son of a Nobel laureate - hardly an accomplishment - this person hasnt done anything notable. Hes the president of an organization not notable enough to have a wikipedia page. And he has a little more than 400 google hits. Delete-- Pierremenard 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable trivia game submitted by its creator. No media coverage. Nn web results. Fails WP:V.-- Perfecto 02:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This list is sourced from one book and disputed by essentially the entire scientific community. The article should be deleted and the list placed in a article on the book, Atlantis, the Seven Seals. The main Easter Island article could refer to this book and its dubious list. - Gavin 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion for nonsense. enochlau ( talk) 10:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I can find no reference to an actual brick monster; delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day-- Hansnesse 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This Brick Monster article is very explanatory and should be kept in existence. it explains a theory on what causes people to fall over bricks slightly sticking up! You're just giving into the apavementists!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.32.94 ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Should not be deleted.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.32.94 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because some people choose to believe there is not a monster that causes mischeif of this type does not mean that they should ignore theories. Why not delete the page on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism just because it may not be true? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Nidiron ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: This is not nonsense. I am a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the phrase, "Brick Monster" is used in the same way as this article discusses it. While some might consider the post to be stupid, publication must start somewhere. This is why I co-authored the article. If you do not believe that people actually discuss the brick monster, listen to this: over 120 UNC students on the popular website facebook.com believe in the brick monster, according to enrollment in the "groups" section of the page. This, of course, is a minimum number of students, because this is the number of people who clearly know there are groups for people who believe what they do. There could also be other people out there that do believe, but do not know that they are part of a larger group of people. Thank you, Matthew, Co-Author and UNC-Chapel Hill Student—the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.23.192.126 ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
just because Facebook has a popular group doesn't mean the article is notable for its own article on Wiki.
You are correct. A Facebook comment or group may not be justification for the article, but in the same right, Wiki has an article about the Flying Spagetti Monster. Belief in "pastafarianism" has no basis in reality. Does it make it wrong for the author of that article to have posted it. How about Christianity? The religion has basis in fact, in the sense that we know a man existed and was executed by Roman guards. Other than that, there is more faith in it than there is fact. Should we then delete all references to Christianity? How about other religions. When you start drawing lines, they better be concrete and for good reason. I challenge you to find many differences between a belief in a "Brick Monster" and any mainstream religion's belief in a G-d or pantheon of gods. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 52.23.192.126 ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:kingdom of loathing
The result of the debate was keep, withdrawn by nominator -- nae'blis (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Existing for nearly a year with no substantial information. Little noteriety and no references apart for it's own website. Delete čĥàñľōŕď 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45 Google News articles on proposed class actions against Telstra and Multiplex see [18]. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an advertisement xaosflux Talk/ CVU 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
An evident autobiography of someone with 71 "most relevant" Google hits.-- Perfecto 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non-notable, 6 Google hits. Current article is a text dump from: http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/hood1.htm Vsmith 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is definitely real. I know the rapper Chigga. All of the information is accurate. I even bought all of his albums.
Most likely fake. Evil saltine 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
One item in his IMDB filmography, and he's not even a named character in it. It's semi-verifiable, but is it notable? Signs point to no. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was weak keep. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 09:01, Feb. 6, 2006
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 09:06, Feb. 6, 2006
I can't figure out what the context or relevance of this is, and my requests for clarification (several months ago now) have not been responded to... AnonMoos 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. I figured it wasn't quite up to speedying because it claims that it has put out two full-length albums, but a few minutes of research provide no evidence that they are produced by major labels or any notable independent label. — Cleared as filed. 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete in line with convention of not listing non-notable university clubs. EcopSoc is not notable outside of its discipline. Sumple 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article asserts notability, but the claim seems to fail. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Searched on Google, found nothing on this; seems like a hoax to me, though I may be completely wrong. The closest is Catherine Kohler Riessmann, but this article asserts that the name begins with a K and she married a man with the last name Westley. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not; if it is, I'll withdraw the nom. Jjjsixsix ( talk)/( contribs) @ 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already speedied. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No claim of notability (NN Band) Pete.Hurd 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Any Tom Dick or Harry can maintain a website. Doesn't make you notable. This article doesn't seem to grasp this concept. Delete Bombycil 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable business term. A Google search reveals exactly 1 hit - used in a letter by a CEO of Celphi Corp in 2004. Delete Bombycil 04:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A sad story but not really notable. Hundreds of people are murdered every day - do each of them deserve a Wikipedia page? I think not. Delete Bombycil 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a television show, not a film. In addition, we already have a stub about this at Stranded (television program). Rory096 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Rubbish, unencyclopedic, vanity. Delete
Ardenn 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Transwiki --
Ardenn
03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, unencyclopedic. Delete Ardenn 05:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
True origin of the word "noid", a word I know only from a pizza commercial. I really can't make heads or tails of it, but in any case it looks like original research. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. It is a simple vanity page, non-famous person Ciperl 07:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. -- D e ath phoenix 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This caught my attention while categorizing articles beginning with the letter G. It appears to be a non-notable flag football association of some sort, with 10 unique hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No real assertion of notability; belongs on a geneaology site, not Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bertha_Chevallier-Boutell OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable phone. Delete. WP 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article for deletion. Alexander doesn't appear to be a notable figure and doesn't yet meet any one of Wikipedia's importance criteria. Google returns fifteen results for "Dawnyell Alexander". Please offer your comments. Adhall 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreated content. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously nominated for AfD and deleted. Ineligible for Wikipedia in accordance with WP:MUSIC. haz ( user talk) 08:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an open forum, and this page seems irrelevant. Not sure what the article is trying to do - it just echoes info on the individuals' separate articles. haz ( user talk) 08:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Was created as a vehicle for the promotion of the RSS Letter.com website after identical text was removed from RSS (file format). There is nothing in this page, which couldn't be better handled there. Delete. -- S.K. 08:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:11, 5 February 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}} . |
"Chimpo is the representative figure for the Fargo North High School technical theatre crew." Does A7 count for figures? -- Kjkolb 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete: By the way, it also refers to 'face-to-face marketing' or 'charity mugging': students who stop you in the street and get you to sign a standing order to a charity... The Land 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is a description of a slang word with no sources. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Sjakkalle as non-notable.May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)
Original author fails to demonstrate the importance of this topic Adhall 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Given no definition of a "plot twist" there are far too many films that could be included in this list. It already includes many that are dubious and will continue to be a magnet for such content. Yes, some of them are famous plot twists, but this would be better discussed in plot twist. violet/riga (t) 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a clearly promotional material from a software developer. Delete Adhall 10:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Split and/or duplicated discussions are harmful. Please contribute at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Gazeebow_Unit. - brenneman (t) (c) 12:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated before. It's been listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review. This Newfoundland rap group has attracted national interest and appeared on a flagship arts program of Canadian national radio, This fact was noted by the person voting keep on the original AfD but seems to have been disregarded, which in my opinion was probably an error.
I think it may well be a good idea to arrive at a consensus on this. I'll note that, while I'm unsure about how Wikpiedians will react to this kind of content, I think it may well be worthy of an article. Since there are some people who seem to want it to be deleted without a proper discussion in this forum, I thought I'd like to make sure that it gets a chance, -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 10:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Simply a pointless article. Ben W Bell 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. If you think it should be transwiki'd and it hasn't been (I didn't bother checking), please explain why at my talk page and I'll do take care of it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 09:16, Feb. 6, 2006
Would be better placed in Wiktionary, but seems not to warrant a Wikipedia article ( WP:NOT) haz ( user talk) 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was refer to copyvios. Babajobu 13:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Total copyvio from the page http://www.4horsemenrecords.com/level1/artists_indiv.asp?ArtistID=1 Ben W Bell 11:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as "Non-existent gang", but not a candidate, especially when BlankVerse on the article's talkpage has a link claiming its existence. So it will be a question of notability or the reliability of the source. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a flashy title for someone's home poker game. Delete Essexmutant 11:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn-bio, vanity page of 19-year-old poker player (isn't that illegal in the USA?) If Googling beware of David Levi, who is a professional player, but unrelated. Delete. Essexmutant 11:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 09:41, Feb. 6, 2006
Non-standard day page - I might have just redirected it to January 28, but it's best to not encourage linking to dates like this (as it bypasses people's date display preferences). — sjorford (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Hold on a second - investigating further..........................
Okay, I just noticed the "This date in recent years" section on the existing day pages, which links to January 28, 2006, January 28, 2005, January 28, 2004, and January 28, 2003. I hadn't noticed this before. Is it a Good Thing? Is it just intended for inclusion on the Current Events pages? Please help unconfuse me... — sjorford (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Furtherness: list of links to similar pages here. — sjorford (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a random mod or map for CS. Stifle 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 13:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Article title mispelled. Changed the only link on Wikipedia to point to article with proper spelling. Noble 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by user:geogre. Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, dubious. Adrian Buehlmann 12:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable content management system. Page reads like an advertisement. It doesn't even get any google hits. Therefore, delete. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, no assertion of notability. Ashibaka tock 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable article about an unsigned recording artist. I would have deleted it as such, but I'm not so sure since Google search turns up quite a lot of results, even though they have been inflated by blogspots etc. Delete May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was change to disambiguation page. haz ( user talk) 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is. haz ( user talk) 13:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 13:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable. Writers.net doesn't list them, yet their site is given as a reference. With the book coming out bit it sounds a lot like advertising for a non-notable writer. - User:MacGyverMagic 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep. Despite what's said above, this author is listed at writers.net [28] with significant publishing credits, in several languages. He's no Kadee Strickland, but that's not a criterion for deletion. (However, the announcement linked above refers to a book by his father, which doesn't directly show notability for the son, but supports the basic verifiability of the article.) Monicasdude 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted
Seems to be vanity? In any case, is uninformative and should be deleted in accordance with WP:NOT. haz ( user talk) 13:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable band. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
NN band, two google hits, admits to having only one song, so fails WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure whether having a Cafepress shop and a rival band is an assertion of notability, so I'm listing here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete -- Durin 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I suspect that this is a nn-bio. I don't speak whatever language this is, but I know English, Spanish and smattering of other Romance languages, and this looks like a personal page to me. Esprit15d 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated for speedy deletion but doesn't qualify, since the article does assert notability. That's why I'm putting it up here. No vote. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Counterstrike gaming team, currently inactive. Assertion of notability is that it has been called "an all-star team", but all unsourced. Delete. Kusma (討論) 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Google only turns up hits for the German actor with the same name, as far as I can tell. Delete. Deli nk 14:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete -- Durin 15:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Delete. Deli nk 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio -- Durin 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is a copyright violation of this page, as it is a direct translation with no changes. It needs to be substantially reworded or deleted. Esprit15d 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - Mys e kurity 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn Erwin
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently spam. Russ Blau (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't quickly google any usage of "European Federation" as it is used in this article, strongly suggesting that it is
original research. Also, the lede for the article, The European Federation is a hypothetical future federal state encompassing the continent of Europe, brings "
WP:NOT a pair of crystal
WP:BALLS" to mind. (See also
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Europe for a similar AfD) Delete. --
Thesquire (
talk -
contribs)
19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Notable slam poet, but would a sculptor whose only claim-to-fame was winning sculpture competitions be notable for inclusion? See also: Rev. Jack and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rev. Jack. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable band. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pathoschild, CSD A7 -- light darkness 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax, not even questionable. Picture is Biggy Smalls. ...not to mention the article's horrible structure. Also, all other "contributions" from this contributor are similar. The Deviant 12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Junk article. Joke/Hoax, Not Notable, etc. Everything else from this contributor is like this, no reason to think this is any different. The Deviant 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity: "highly accomplished...". Selling a book on Amazon [29] is not sufficient to be notable IMHO. The review of the book on Amazon is actually not extraordinary. Edcolins 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Detailed, nerdish page about AOL Instant Messenger accounts. Importance not established. Un-encyclopedic. -- RHaworth 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnotable vanity; unencyclopedic DanielCD 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads almost like a dictdef, seems to be exclusively used by NIH in a single set of resources. I'm not sure if this belongs on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
musician un-notability, delete. Melaen 15:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
un-notable php script, delete. Melaen 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Corps. Mailer Diablo 05:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article already exists at Corps and is unnecessary. haz ( user talk) 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't find any evidence of the band's existence. [30] Non-notable at best. Optichan 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No Idea what on earth it is about, Delete -- Differentgravy 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Differentgravy 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Surnames don't seem to be notable for articles. delete -- Revolución ( talk) 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Is an irrelevant article, does not assert the importance of the subject. I am renowned for citing WP:NOT, but I guess I'll have to do it again. haz ( user talk) 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Half the text which is in this article should actually be in
The Cowboy Bar. However, even if we leave out this information, what's left behind is nothing more than a non-notable guy...there are so many people that run moderately popular blogs. Also, this article reads like an advertisement.
Soothing
R
16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. ShadowPuppet 16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing notable here Nv8200p talk 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio.
No prominent Google links for this individual at all
EuroSong
16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, possible vanity
Adam
(
talk)
16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd say he's pretty non-notable, all he has achieved are a few contributions to a few Malaysian blogs.. Keep, see down.
Soothing
R
16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like a press release, the notability of this hasn't been established despite being recreated after a speedy about a month ago. [40]. Could technically be speedied now, but i'm putting it here to resolve the matter once and for all. Delete Karm a fist 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mind matrix 20:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A page on a supposed secret and in development Linux distro from
Google that may or may not exist.
WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete.
RasputinAXP
talk
contribs
16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Confirmed by Google:
Google has confirmed it is working on a desktop linux project called Goobuntu, but declined to supply further details, including what the project is for. [41]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that this artist meets the criteria for inclusion of biographies. The article states that the artist has several exhibitions since the 1980s and is listed in an "Encyclopaedia of Watercolour Landscapes". I'm unable to find any trace of his exhibitions, and can't find the "Encyclopaedia of Watercolour Landscapes" in the catalogue of the British Library. Altogether he looks like a local Suffolk painter with no indication of a wider audience. Pilatus 16:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no indication that this company meets WP:CORP. Pilatus 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
From DancingBeaver(The Founder) - You try Paying some money grabbing solisiter £300 to sign one little bit of paper!!
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No hits for the good Dr Hendrik Helmer on Google Scholar, and there is no "Glassgow University of Human Science" in Germany. Delete as Complete Bollocks. Pilatus 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising Seinfreak37 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I further note that Tarrasque is listed as a significant user so it has a whiff of vanity about it. Further, the founder of the site "doesn't post quite as often as he used to, uninterested in the forums now that he has more important things to worry about." Capitalistroadster 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a local community outreach group, but I don't see an assertion of a level of notability that would cover it being in the encyclopedia. A lot of effort has gone into writing this initial revision, hence my AfD instead of speedy, perhaps the community has some ideas. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; see other debates on the subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; see other debates on the subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; see also the discussion on other AfDs regarding similar subpages of Talk:Kansas River. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; see other debates pertaining to subpages of Talk:Kansas River. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; see other debates on Talk:Kansas River subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This woman was a Russian partisan who was executed by the Germans in WW 2. The German forces killed partisan fighters in droves, and there is nothing specifically notable about her. Pilatus 17:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I was very tempted to speedy this, but I guess founding some hyponosis clinics is sort of a claim of notability. Pretty bad one though. - R. fiend 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As the author of this entire article, I would like to understand why my article is considered unfit for Wikipedia. I have read the Deletion guide and found no fault my article may have to warrant deletion. I first wish to express my understanding that Wikipedia is a wide-ranging service meant to contain a wealth of information about the widest array of respectable topics possible. I have written this article bearing in mind the rules of Wikipedia. For several reasons, I believe my article has a place on Wikipedia.
Arguments
Should it be found that I cannot provide satisfying answers to the claims leading to the deletion of this article, I will radpidly withdraw without complaint.
Now I ask this : Does deletion include the possibility of establishing a wiki site outside of Wikipedia? I cite in example the Homestar Runner Wiki and the UFOPaedia site. If my article is to be removed from Wikipedia, I would like to learn the procedure to creating an outside Wiki site.
AvianSavara 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.-- Alhutch 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is vanity and was marked as such the day it was created. It describes a non-notable person who "works in promoting valid W3C standards across the web" and owns a non-notable company that is "famous" for "the way they are pushing standards to the edge". The creator of the article has no other contributions on Wikipedia, other than to (presuambly - slightly different IP addresses) remove a previous VFD tag on the article. CrypticBacon 17:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is unsourced, and since it sounded like a perfectly good syndrome to me I went looking for sources; when I was only able to find nine relevant google hits, however, I decided it might be a little early for this to be in the encyclopedia. - squibix (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dandun 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree with user:Dandun. It is a real life condition and part of everyday slang,used by teenagers mainly. I have heard it being used many times. Pojojo 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep: withdrawn by nominator. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Either nn bio or a hoax. 42 unique ghits, none of which are in English. Delete Makemi 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.-- Alhutch 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable nn-bio. Delete Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. 1 google hit. Compu te r Jo e 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 6 February 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}} . |
Torc 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete for nn-group. enochlau ( talk) 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete under WP:NN and WP:NFT-- M @ r ē ino 18:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amusement website. -- RHaworth 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; put this on DRV if any proof of his existence can ever be found, or just recreate with some decent sources. Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Character in the Lord of the Rings universe who is... never mentioned by Tolkien. Delete as Tolkienfancruft. bikeable (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as advertisement for website even though there is no link provided Bugturd Talk 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
An email newsletter with 5 subscribers is not notable. NoIdeaNick 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
GSPN is a viable newsletter that is sent out to between 50 and 100 people each week, thus it is a notable newsletter.
The result of the debate was redirected already. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Made up musical genre. Neoglism of certain bands from the Black Metal genre. Supposed themes of this 'genre' are key themes in the genre of Black Metal, and as such, this list draws no distinction from Black Metal nor does it have any source, or notablity. Deleted and redirect to Black Metal Leyasu 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete possibly speedy as copyvio. Looks like a course syllabus copied directly from a webpage for one of the courses there Bugturd Talk 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page should not be deleted - it is not a cut and paste - OK the URLs in it were. This is for our course Computer_Writing at Albany Academy for Girls in Albany NY
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Schaller was allegedly responsible for raising $8 million for the Thune campaign against Tom Daschle, but a cursory Google shows no notability, and I don't believe this in itself makes Schaller notable. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Heavy metal music. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Made up musical genre. This supposed 'genre' is a neoglism of bands from both the Power Metal, Black Metal and Death Metal genre. It draws no distinction between the bands, except to state that several bands from the genres all use themes akin to war, which is already stated in all three articles Here, Here, and Here. A scene doesnt exist for this supposed genre either, and the term is not in wide spread use. The only band that refers to themselfs this way is Bal-Sagoth, and that is in open mockery of the term. Delete and redirect to the Metal Music page, as this genre is Neoglism, Unsourced, Non-Existant and Advertisment. Leyasu 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity/advertising, not notable, POV got much worse after page flagged with advertising template Craig Stuntz 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film producer. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems farfetched. Delete Ac1983fan 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable literary website. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nice guy who's done some nice things, but completely unworthy of Wiki. Not notable, and arguably forgettable. One of 9 main editors for an out-of-print book? Owns a store? Is in a band? If everyone that fit such low criteria was in Wiki, Wiki would need millions of more articles. Airumel 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
They may be a sports team, but they seem non-notable. There are hundreds of thousands of local sports teams around the world. A Google search for them produces zero results
EuroSong
19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete. -- Andy Saunders 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 10:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Correcting AfD listing no vote Obina 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is basically just family history. So they owned land in northern Iraq; merely owning land isn't really encyclopedic, and I don't see any other real claims of notability. If there are any they should be stated. - R. fiend 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Tried to speedy this one but somebody kept deleting the tag. So I will try it this way. This is non-notable, and possibly a hoax. Delete Bombycil 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied Broken Segue 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable. probably created in error. text moved to his user page. Veej 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Bio with unverifiable assertions of notability. Almost certainly fictional copcruft. Delete Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Appears to be a fictional game and a joke article. rob 20:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -- D e ath phoenix 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, according to
WP:WEB
Adam
(
talk)
20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Someone's opinions about a football club. Not encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, folks, another podcast wishing to be launched with a Wikipedia entry. Fails WP:WEB.-- Perfecto 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The podcast with the lastest in, what else, video game news. -- Perfecto 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Though I must say I'm pleased if your comic and forum has been running since 2 years ago. Unfortunately entries here must have been mentioned elsewhere before they can be included. I'm sorry, chap, those are the rules. -- Perfecto 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently fails
WP:BLP since the sole claim to notability is a book which does not appear on Amazon even after I moved it from ALL CAPS. Both author and book are included in this nomination, please state if you think one should be kept and the other not.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN artist / vanity article. Editor has copied content to userspace. -- Longhair 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 10:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipeda is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It reads like a how-to guide. Optichan 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected. Ifnord 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundancy with Folk music of Italy and Popular music of Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineviz ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this article on a webcomic which does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. There is no claim to notability in the article and my searches for reliable, verifiable sources for this article (on google, nexis, etc.) have turned up nothing. -- Dragonfiend 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nonsense about a place that probably does not even exist (see [47] or [48], for example) a.bit 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied. Babajobu 10:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity. WP:BIO requires that he be "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers", which the article shows he clearly isn't. Suggest he moves it to User:Paul Becque Oscarthecat 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense, vandalism and attack on Austin Peay State University. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete a hoax Bill 22:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as an attack page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible attack page. Reads like an nn-bio up until the bit about him being wanted in three countries, which Google suggests is nonsense [49] [50]. Doesn't seem to be blatantly false enough for deletion as nn-bio or attack page, though. Delete nevertheless as hoax. -- Malthusian (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a substantial recreation of a previously deleted article, see the first nomination. I'm not speedying because it is not completely the same as the original article, it is nearly a year since the first deletion, and WP:WEB was passed in the meantime. My vote is delete, does not seem to meet WP:WEB. -- bainer ( talk) 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination moved to WP:MFD. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy userfy, user subpage mistakenly created in article space. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page didn't quite fit into any of the speedy categories, although it came close. It is about an unimplemented housing project that was to consist of 25 homes. There is no indication of notability, and it doesn't appear very interesting or encyclopedic. I favor delete. RJH 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominated for speedy deletion by Dunemaire with the reason: "It's an article in Portuguese about a non-notable website of a Presbyterian college in Brasil." CSD A7 does not cover websites, but I see no claim that this would meet WP:WEB. Thus delete. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect to McJob. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
this nomination for deletion was not completed so I am giving a reason.Delete unencyclopedic Bill 23:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
feh, i just boldly redirected it as above. nothing to see here. Derex 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 10:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as OR, unverifiable speculation, crystal ball. Doctor Whom 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as link spamming/nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable website. The gaming clan has only 4 members, so it doesn't seem important. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Weak! Hey, we gotta start somewhere! Adinsx88 | (talk)
"doesn't seem important"? Get a life. Obviously you didn't read the Wiki definition of a gaming clan. Right on the page it clearly states "These range from groups of a few friends to 1000-person organizations"
The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism. Google shows only 60 distinct hits. Apparently it is a phrase uttered by Cory Doctorow. From an economic perspective, this phrase is sheer nonsense (I'm an econ prof), and it is certainly not used in the profession. The article lists a few examples of near-zero marginal cost of production, an important and well-studied economic phenomenon. However, a techno-hipster neologism of no widespread use is not the place for a discussion of those issues. Also, this content is not a useful basis for such an article, it's just a couple of examples. Should this be deleted, I would be willing to write a proper economic article on this issue. (I usually avoid writing economics articles, because that's what I call work.) I have contacted the original author asking for some evidence that this term is notable, but received no reply. Derex 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I am reasonably certain the phrase predates his usage. Post scarcity is used in my 1995 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Although as I see post-scarcity comes out blue this can be deleted after all or possibly merged.-- T. Anthony 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-admitted original research; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Ifnord 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated for two weeks on WP:PNT. Discussion from there below. Kusma (討論) 23:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep -- article has been translated. Kusma (討論) 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated for two weeks on WP:PNT. Entry from there below. Kusma (討論) 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 10:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Three external links are crammed into this one sentence article. Created by a user whose primary edits are inserting external links. Besides all that, Google search turns up 718 hits. Mrtea (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply