The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7 and WP:SNOW). Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
non english entry
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
That in itself would not be a reason for immediate deletion. However, here is what the translation desk has to say. Kusma (討論) 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was
speedy G7 by
User:Starblind.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
I originally {{
prod}}ded this page, but the creator objected without reason.
Google search for "Christian Schmidt" "Molecular Cancer" brings up 46 unique hits; when searching for one alone, the results given make it difficult to justify a conclusion. Implies notability, though I doubt many people have heard of him. I have to say delete.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
What justification do you need in order to change your mind ? In other words, how 'well known' should a person be in order to be included in Wikipedia?-- Schmidt102 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep, extensive publication record, journal editor, signficant Google Scholar presence. Notable subject, neutrally written article. Content is more important than authorship, and vanity alone isn't grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I looked it up and agree with you. Go ahead and delete the page as soon as possible. --
Schmidt102
01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. I think it's fair to close this as "delete", as there are considerably more delete votes than keep votes, and most of the keep votes are from users with very few contributions. JIP | Talk 07:35, 4 April 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 this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. 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 are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
A webcomic hosted on DrunkDuck, a free webcomic host which is described in its own article as "a small community", it has an Alexa rank over 100,000. And note, that this webcomic is just one of many on that 100,000+ ranked site. Is this comic notable? A look on Google for "Elijah and Azuu" brings up 125 hits, and looking through the first 70 or so links, not a single one of them was a review or critical commentary from a semi-respected source. - Hahnchen 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like an advertisement Indiana Fats 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I have no idea what this is supposed to be. Does note establish notabilty or even wether this organization actually exists. Google has never heard about it. Mstroeck 01:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep `' mikka (t) 18:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
No real significance. It seems like a person's resume. Red dwarf 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. The number of new voters here is so high that I cannot count them. Arguments presented regarding notability revolve around the Alexa rank which is below 3 million. If people are interested in a wiki for webcomics, I suggest you go to Comixpedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 5 April 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}} . |
A webcomic, which can be found here on a website with no Alexa rank. Is this website notable? I tried various Google searches, "Eight Easy Bits" brings back 40 hits and so does "8 Easy Bits". Is this website notable? Is it influential in the webcomic world? Signs say it isn't. - Hahnchen 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Weak keep 11,100 hits for "8 easy bits"
[1] and seems to have a following of sorts plus positive reviews. Reasonably good article.
ProhibitOnions
09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems minor and non-notable. -- maru (talk) contribs 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Pam Bondi also has an IMDb entry, which I doubt most other prosecutors do. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1980834/ Then we add that she was offered her own reality TV show. And if you think she needs to be connected to a major case, she was the prosecutor in Dwight Gooden's case; Gooden is a famous baseball player. Beisnj 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable philosophy. Was originally proded as a hoax, but was deprodded by the article's creator. AmiDaniel ( Talk) 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a word in an unidentified language (Google seems to suggest that it may be in the Zulu language); questionable for English Wikipedia. Mareklug talk 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete not an encyclopedic article.--
MONGO
04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by MONGO. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: A local sorrority with only 26 members, very non-notable. The article states they have "NUMBER alumnae across the United States." -- Hetar 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominated for {{ prod}} twice by two different users, both times reverted by JJay, who is unlikely to change the state of this article in any way shape or form, and i'm getting tired of it. Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [02:00] < freakofnurxture | talk>
The result of the debate was speedied. — Mar. 29, '06 [03:12] < freakofnurxture | talk>
non-notable, and probably vanity. A quick WHOIS shows that the anonymous editor that created the page comes from the same town as the hacker himself, alluding to vanity. Delete, and possibly speedy. Firestorm 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. See [3] [4] [5] and [6].
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet the WP:PROFTEST criteria. The author (Hjb) is clearly the subject himself. Is this a vanity page? Ogdred 02:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software that is stated to cause 'whiplash' and 'death'. Speedy delete pulled twice without explanation. Delete. DMG413 02:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.221.19 ( talk • contribs)
wow, pride is a sin, you guys aren't Brittanica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabud ( talk • contribs)
You haven't seen the commercials? Farce? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.221.19 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails notability in my view, but cannot be speedied as article asserts notability in political activism exolon 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, as 70% of all votes are for deletion, and POV forks are against Wikipedia policy. JIP | Talk 07:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is just a copy and paste of the Warsaw Uprising (1794) article. User:Molobo disliked its sourced expansion and tried to blank it. When blanking was reverted he pasted the entire content into the new title creating a duplicate article Irpen 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:BIO. -- Wolf530 02:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move, but the deletion during the debate now requires a history merge. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable, possible vanity page A2Kafir 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Guys, here is another radio interview with him:
29/3, CJBK--London, Ontario--10am Eastern. Listen Here: http://911truth.org/911truthmedia/Audio/CJBK%201290AM%20Talk%203-29-06.mp3
His been in Showbiz Tonight, and has been interviewed by CJBK, both times as a representative of the 9/11 truth movement, he is the media coordiantor of one of the bigest 9/11 movement groups, and you call him non-notable? C'mon, he is far more notable than a whole bunch of the guys in wikipedia and easly fullfills WP:BIO:
Its simply wrong to delete him. -- Striver 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
First, if you quote his name, it's only 557 hits [8] Reply: Yeah, sorry, i just saw that you commented before i corrected it. -- Striver 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is why the "5000" is a guideline, not a rule. I've been quoted in several papers with a daily publication of several million; I get a few hundred ghits (and I have a non-common name), and I've been quoted on Fox News. I'm just a dopey college student and I don't rate a wiki article. Getting quoted in a paper is not alone a sign of notability, regardless of how popular the paper is. Hell, they quote the neighbors in the New York Times when a building burns down. Are they notable now? -- Mmx1 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
You dont need to have any education to begin with in order to have notability. Have you been invited to talk on both national tv and local radio? If you have, then you are also notable according to WP:BIO, SPECIALY if you are the "media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement"! Again, have you been called to talk in both radio and national TV? Do you have a large number of people you represent? Are you the media coordinator of the prominent website of a group? Are you working on a movie that is being relesed 9/4/06? Bereger has all of this, and you are deleteting him as nn?-- Striver 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Is he less notable than: P. J. Abbott, Achille Valenciennes, Adélaïde Dufrénoy, Adrien René Franchet or Bernard Picinbono ?-- Striver 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
More Michael Berger: [9], deleting him is just wrong! -- Striver 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This could be considered cruft, the mod is unreleased and the article isn't wikified.-- Zxcvbnm 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Cruft-- Zxcvbnm 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sockpuppets not included. Mailer Diablo 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverified, and non-notable. I've never seen this used in relation to these Universities. Delete Ardenn 03:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7. the wub "?!" 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Google disproves notability when cross-searching with "Hellboy" [11] or "Hell Boy" [12] - both frequently mentioned in article.
}
The result of the debate was speedy delete by MONGO as patent nonsense. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Seems like just a bunch of made up nonsense. CharacterZero 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An associate professor of architecture who fails WP:PROF. Only possible bit of fame is designing a house for George Bush. Seems to be part of a "Get as Many UTexas People in Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Calton | Talk 04:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Associate professor of art. Wrote a computer program. Yet another Average Professor, and fails WP:BIO, it appears. Calton | Talk 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
President of a Canadian internet pharmacy. That's pretty much it: an average mid-sized company's CEO. Seems to fail WP:BIO, though possibly his company might pass WP:CORP. Calton | Talk 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Reposting of deleted material; non-notable or hoax
SigPig
05:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
* Speedy delete repost must die In light of Zoe's information, Weak Keep.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep- The very original was deleted because it was a hoax. This one looks legitamite.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable comic book company. Both Google (2 hits) and Yahoo (zero hits) failed to find anything substantial.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game (format unspecified) created by non-notable "team". 30 google hits for the phrase, but none when combined with main character's name. I mistakenly re-added {{ prod}} for what turned out to be the third (whoops) time. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy and delete. Mailer Diablo 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn (Google search yields 676); subject appears to be user M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think thats right. Just because someone doesn't have a direct "claim to fame" doesn't mean that they don't do good work, and there is absolutely no reason why this page should be deleted. Larry Harriet is very popular among the Court TV message board. He deserves to be included in Wikipedia's database. Thankyou for taking the time!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryharriet ( talk • contribs)
DO NOT DELETE, USER HAS VALID PTS.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV fork of 9/11 Commission, whose thin excuse for existence is the use of a pejorative name. Another product of...g'wan, guess. Calton | Talk 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
All you guys, could you explain to me how this is a pov fork, while Great Satan is not? No? You cant? I guessed so. Thanks for voting in accordance to Wikipedia policies, and not with feeling and opinions in the first hand. -- Striver 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm finding a lot of "Tony Abbott"s through Google, but almost none of them this guy, nor as the author of actual books of these titles. This is a vanity/advert for an Aussie psychic. Calton | Talk 06:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Mark Hoppus. JIP | Talk 07:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable podcast – besides it is already covered in Blink-182. -- Bruce1ee 06:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a hoax/nonsense or both. Peter Grey 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what this article is trying to achieve, but as it stands it is unacceptable for Wikipedia. cj | talk 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An unsuccessful minor party candidate in a State election who achieved an unremarkable result. Not notable. cj | talk 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable as local Scout group; vanity jergen 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Google results disprove notability. [24]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisment for one of many dating web sites. Gu 07:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Bitmap Brothers - Liberatore( T) 15:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This person does not appear to be notable according to this Google search. CrypticBacon 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article devoted to a non-notable website - a wikipedia fork of all things! -- Aim Here 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company; article created by company's founder. 59 google hits, not all relevant. Prod contested by anon without comment. Henning Makholm 09:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article created by User:Holowacz and copied from his (PDF) biography. 451 hits for Eric Vaughn Holowacz and 662 for Eric Holowacz. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the article's content is speculative. It appeared as a tech demo, showing off the GBA's capabilities at E3. It was never spoken of again. It makes no more sense than an article on the Zelda SW tech demo, or the Mario 128 tech demo, or the FFVII tech demo. Additionally, the same itself is speculative, and most of the article's content is a quote of a provided link. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged {db-band} but contested. Subject looks profoundly uinimportant, but let AfD have its say. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
As much as I love all things game-related in WP, nonnotable, gameguide
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
10:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete:Hmm didn't work last time, but non-notable gameguide/program. See 3rd paragraph "the aim of this article is not just to give a description of what the game involves, but more to give an idea of the basics of how to play the game"
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
10:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Try as I might I can't see where the claims are that this character meets WP:BIO. Unencyclopaedic in tone, and cone that is fixed there is virtually no verifiable data, and of that none seems to establish notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merged; now redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An AFD tag was added to this article, but the article was not listed here. I'm listing it now. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete. The entire article is nonsense, even the part about the cicadas.--
C S
(Talk)
10:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable academic. the wub "?!" 11:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Dr Ugail's recent research in the area of 3D modelling and animation has been reported in the media. Examples inlcude, Yorkshire Post [33], Innovations Report [34], Yorkshire Forward [35], IOFILM news [36]. Though not a full professor he is an established resarcher and acedemic in his field. Simply not being a full professor is not a good enough excuse for deleting this page. -- 82.47.145.96
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No indication of this flash movie's significance. Proposed for deletion by User:Weregerbil, but User:AliceV reverted without comment.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable horserider (well, not yet, just as soon as he's finished his accountancy exams) claiming notability but Googling for "Tom Bryan" dressage produces one possibly unrelated MySpace account. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster (Lost), this is sufficiently different that I am not comfortable deleting as a repost, but the core problem remains: the name is made up by fans and lacks a reliable source, and the balance of the content is also largely speculative. There is nothing here which can't be encyclopaedically covered without the speculation in the article for Lost. Similar concerns raised in Talk:The Monster (Lost). Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Weak Keep. There's already an apparent consensus that Lost characters are notable enough for Wikipedia - and this is a recurring character in Lost. There are very obvious problems with this article, not least of which is that The Monster is not the official name of the character, but I see these as problems to be worked out rather than reasons for deletion. If we've already decided that Lost fancruft is notable enough for Wikipedia - and I think we have - then this should stay. --
Hyperbole
21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn-bio.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged as db-bio but makes some assertion of notability. Geogre's Law failure, notability is questionab le per the redlinked status of the businesses and projects mentioned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
article belongs to Wiktionary and there already is such an entry there Mumpitz 12:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is nothing but a collection of external link spam. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory.-- GraemeL (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was kill it with fire. DS 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Sea Squirrel is a mythical creature. Without references we can only assume that this myth was created by the author of this article. (Prod tag was removed by anon.) -- RHaworth 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be spam, no sign of meeting WP:CORP, created by oilpainting ( talk · contribs). Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable Sludge 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This guy seems to be as famous as me. Poppypetty 13:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete - Liberatore( T) 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax. NN website at the very least. Computerjoe 's talk 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - rewrite acknowledged, but it doesn't appear to address the concerns of the 'delete's. Flower party■ 23:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't make up my mind whether to speedy this one as an attack or whether to flag it for extreme cleanup to remove the POV. The answer, I guess, hinges on whether the guy is thought notable. If he is, then the crap about child support needs to go (I've left it so you can see what I mean). Just zis Guy you know? 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore( T) 15:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
There are millions of people on this planet that have a much stronger record of community involvement than A. Dolan does, and are more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now that Dolan has resigned as Chair of the Green Party of BC, there's no reason why he should be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prescottbush ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was no consensus (9k, 9d). H e rmione 1980 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no need for this. There was a very old deletion debate Talk:List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages/Delete, but the consensus is rather sloppy and now this is just a title list in other languages. There is no discussion of anything about the translations, just a bare list. We have a sidebar with links to wikipedias in other languages, and for this particular topic, we have Harry Potter in translation which actually has some interesting content, including a list of languages the books have been translated into. All six Harry Potter books have articles in many languages, where this information could easily be accessed. I don't think the whole Harry Pottern in translation series is bad, but Wikipedia is not babelfish.com. Delete. Mangojuice 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 09:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Relates to "the posting on the web of rap lyrics". Has a "list of prominent persons" that includes several very insulting entries. —This unsigned comment was added by Alethiophile ( talk • contribs) .
Delete as neologism still. (And yes, strongly agree that offensiveness is not a reason to delete). JoshuaZ 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore( T) 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. NN pub, just the address in the article, no explanation of notability. Prod removed by creator. This is a waste of AfD time - there need to be criteria for getting rid of obviously unworthy entries by CSD means. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 15:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
While it has about 21,000 google hits, all vaguely relating to the same thing, and it was briefly an internet fad (and I mean very briefly) it didn't stick, was not memorable or notable in any special way, and the article as written has nothing to offer.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Syrthiss
Delete non-notable musical project – have not released anything yet and a Google on "Tiger party" "Carlos Gomez-Hernandez" -wikipedia, returns nothing. -- Bruce1ee 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete le crap. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense, but not patent nonsense. Hoax. Originally prod'd, but prod removed w/o comment. -- JLaTondre 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
If Wikipedia existed in the early twentieth century and you posted an article about Picaso before he became famous, or if anyone else did, it should have been deleted because it is impossible tl tell for sure who will be a famous artist or musician. Someone would eventually notice this article, and only good articles should be in Wikipedia. Academic Challenger 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Similar to TEAM, this article is a hodgepodge of advertising, unverified accusations and responses to said accusations, and other cruft. Any relevant information can be incorporated into Independent Business Owner, Amway or Quixtar; the rest can be deleted. Paul 15:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not an encyclopedia article. It's a list of movies and videogames. Apparently it was created because this sort of thing was getting added to M16 rifle and people didn't like it there. Well, I don't see how it's any better as a seperate page. There's also M4 Carbine in popular culture, which is a very similiar list, just for a shorter variant of the same rifle. See also the talk pages. Friday (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
fan cartoon
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Non-notable website. Advertising, by the admission of the page's creator. (Admission in this thread, access restricted to existing members due to forum policy.) ThomasWinwood 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to have been created largely as an advert (I've removed the links), for a group that is distinctly non-notable. Delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 06:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a list of names. Doesn't belong in an Encylopedia. Gflor e s Talk 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax? Non-notable. Gflor e s Talk 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Has a previous no consensus AFD. No idea why it was AFD'd, ask User:Andyru. Just listing it properly. kotepho 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) This article was nominated for deletion before when I was extremely new to Wikipedia. The argument was not presented well. Please take a look at the following discussions: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Oosterman ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Williamo1 ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citywide_Church ] reply
Delete: user Williamo1 (and his socks) are using this article as a personal soapbox. Look at the edit history. Any person just diving into this issue is going to be immediately horrified at the past of Roy Gordon Lawrence. However, nobody on Wikipedia ever cared about him before Williamo1 first created the page. It was created in a manner to portray public informance (seems justified)... however, quickly has turned into a personal vendetta and soapbox for him. Williamo1 seems to be using this as a sex offender registry, tracking the whereabouts of this person. He pays no heed to the fact this man has changed his lifestyle form his past and pokes fun as his current life as well as tried to descredit the church he attends by suggesting all sorts of crazy things (saying he won't cooperate with police etc.) This article either needs to be deleted to remove the soapbox (which only Williamo1 cares about), or at least its history should be deleted (kept as current) and Williamo1 and his IP should be banned from further edits (I don't wish to edit it either). Note that nobody in Wikipedia cared about this subject matter except Williamo1 (and myself) -- though a few people have stepped in to help control the POV editing by Williamo1 and another stepped in to help format the article better. Andyru 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom-- Joe dimitri 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability - SCEhard T 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Extremely minor character from "Powerhouse," a short story by Eudora Welty. A transcription of the story reveals that "Uranus Knockwood" is simply a name on a telegram. This might be worthy of note on a page about the short story "Powerhouse" or Thirteen Stories, the collection containing "Powerhouse" (neither currently exists), but as a separate article it's bound to remain a minor stub at best. I'd bet this was added more for the silliness of the name than for any encyclopedic content.
Incidentally, the namespace is incorrect. Aside from the obvious formatting issue, there's no evidence that Uranus Knockwood's middle initital is "P". - Rynne 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Gflor e s Talk 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwiki to wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged and delete. Fragments of an early effort at a wikibook, a Cliff's Notes to Atlas Shrugged; much of the rest of the project is already on Wikibooks. Encyclopedic material has been merged to main article. Septentrionalis 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Should have been an A7. Mailer Diablo 11:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. I can't find any bios of Ryan Seacrest that indicate he has a sister. NBC's website lists a past winner of the lucky case game as "Jessica Sechrist", not "Seacrest". The page was previously deleted by User:Mushroom since it does not assert notability, and I think that is still the case. Big Smooth 18:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merging; already done, and apparently no one objected. - Liberatore( T) 15:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Page merged to mass production on suggestion. Misterpurple 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This disambig is pointless. It only points to one article with this term in the article's name. And then there is only one more link to a music album not with this term in its name. P199 19:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged speedy, but that was contested (and companies are not speediable anyway). Taken here for a closer scrutiny. - Liberatore( T) 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy A7, performed by Gflores. -- Saberwyn 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
repeatedly removed db tags for a non notable bio nomination Arundhati bakshi 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Grandmasterka: you, sir, are a loser! -- Mcdeltat 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore( T) 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable training institute. The article is nothing but an advertisement for the nn company -- Ragib 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I prodded this a few days ago, but the tag was removed without explanation. This is a small webcomics hosting site that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Also, WP:VANITY is likely an issue, since the article was created by User:MeekoAngelo, who appears to be the site's webmaster. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable, vanity. Bucketsofg 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted (A7) by Chairboy. Proto|| type 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a Web site by a group of girls who do manga-style webcomics. Perhaps a potential article for Comixpedia, but it doesn't currently meet WP:WEB. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Userfy. Stifle 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Evident nn-bio, but claims notability (or at least fame), so speedy tag removed and article sent here. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect; achieves same end as delete anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor character in movie for which main characters do not have separate pages; no point A2Kafir 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic or notable enough for its own article. As it stands, it's a dicdef plus advertising. Brian G. Crawford 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, I agree with Easyas12c in that this entry was not in clear view of visitors until it was listed on the AFD page. In any case, the world is full of offensive things, and hiding them isn't in Wikipedia's spirit of inquiry at all.-- Primetime 02:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"This Wiki page was created for the students of Dr. Anthony Cox's Healthcare Marketing course at IUPUI"...
WP:NOT a free webhost. I'm sure
IUPUI has web space for students and professors.
RasputinAXP
c
20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It has been said that this is a Not Notable hobby group. Opinions? KPWM_Spotter 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy deleted - currently on WP:DRV. W.marsh 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a one-man hit piece on a non-notable individual. The meme of the moment is fun, but we hardly need character assassination pieces on Wikipedia, and other than the brief mention of the incident suitable for Trivia on the
Tuttle, Oklahoma page, this man does not merit his own entry.
Merge any appropriate contents into the
Tuttle, Oklahoma piece and delete separate entry. — WCityMike (
T |
C)
20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete this article and do not merge into
Tuttle, Oklahoma (indeed delete the info about Jerry in that article also.) This is a funny but unbelievably minor occurance (and yes, it is why I looked up the city) that just isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It was broken by the Reg and then picked up as an 'oddly enough' piece by Slashdot (note the foot), Digg, Reddit et al. Nowhere else in the media. No lawsuit, FBI, nothing, just an obnoxious email exchange from a manager who got out the wrong side of the bed and doesn't understand computers. It's a funny story that will be forgotten within a week - no, ok, maybe a month. _If_ it develops into a significant lasting internet meme or "tuttled" gains traction I do of course retract this. In that case I think the incident should be recorded here (it was Jerry as a person that was involved in this) rather than on the
Tuttle, Oklahoma page; it's an incident concerning Jerry, not the town. A single line in the town article referencing Jerry would then be enough (as with
exploding whale, something that doesn't happen every day.) --
Blorg
21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Closed. Speedy deleted. — WCityMike ( T | C) 22:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 04:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, exactly zero Google hits. Essentially no assertion of notability (on the fence, but I don't think the unsourceable list of songs counts), but attempts to speedy have failed (per the author's refusal to heed warnings not to remove A7 tags from his own pages; I was even nice enough to {{hangon}} for him...). I hate bringing it here, but... delete. -- Kinu t/ c 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
looks like it fails WP:WEB-- Syrthiss 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable web show. It's also worth nothing that the creator of the Wiki page is Wwe4567, which is also the cited username of the show's creator on Youtube. — LrdChaos 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Was (were) previously nominated for deletion here. The result was no consensus/merge. I have merged them and believe it is now clear that this (these) article(s) should be deleted. — Ruud 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - {{ nn-bio}}. Stifle 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't pass notability bar, acomplishments not notable. Hpuppet - «Talk» 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe that if they wait a bit for the article to expand, it can be increasingly more accurate. Aimee Wall is an associate of Dr. Mel Levine, and is increasingly heading into fame. (The highest fame a Los Angles school teacher in a small private school can accomplish.) - «Talk» 21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Aimee Wall is a real individual and the article has been cleaned up to comply with Wikipedia's standards
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as repost of a previously deleted article. Stifle 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Moving from prod as a courtesy to the reprodder. It was prodded both times as a non-notable website (see WP:WEB). It also failed AfD back in December, but since the article asserts growth since that time, I don't know if speedy is appropriate, and I can't view deleted articles anyway, to know if it's a substantial recreation. NickelShoe ( Talk) 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nonnotable sub genre of death metal - genre-cruft; contents are covered by death metal. Delete Spearhead 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Jason London and Jeremy London each have their own article. Nothing on this page can be merged into the other articles, and I don't believe a redirect could be created either. Sweetie Petie 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{ nn-bio}}. Stifle 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
gibberish A2Kafir 21:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
what is this metalheads that are good at math? All sarcasm aside, just another bogus metal genre. delete Spearhead 21:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no such thing as Grand Theft Auto "4". Fake. Unverifiable. Don Vito Corleone 21:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 16:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Advertisement. Delete. Ken 22:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Article was recreated soon after the previous deletion and has just now been noticed. Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is essentially an advertisment for the corporation. The user who created the article is an employee [37]. While the company may not be insignificant, Wikipedia isn't designed to provide free ads. Additionally, this page was created not long after the previous deletion above! -- Scientizzle 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete slight merge and redirect to
Bob Dylan, as per the last comment.
Johnleemk |
Talk
14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comparisons don't necessarily mean anything. Just because someone is compared to someone else, does not necessarily make them as good as that artist. Comparisons are even more pointless when it's with another great musician. Are we going to put an article comparing the Beatles to the Stones? No. They're both good, similar in some ways, different in others. Imagine if we compiled a list of musicians compared to the Beatles. That would be every post-1970 band in existence! Darkhawk 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 04:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable ex-band, WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart positions, tours, notable members. PROD removed without improving article or discussion as to same. (aeropagitica) 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) 06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I get the feeling this might be an unpopular one, but I don't see anything notable about a particular given eclipse, that can't be summarised in the solar eclipse article itself. There's a nice gallery, which can go off to Commons, and the rest isn't worth keeping IMHO. Erath 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
-- B.d.mills 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwikied already. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef that can't possibly grow into an article we don't already have. Daniel Case 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It could be useful for the people to know that caput exists both as bone/body part and as a disease. It serves as a redirection, just like the CNS -- www.doc 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I added the disambiguation as a footnote, I hope it's alright now-- www.doc 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Political advocacy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Daniel Case 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
VERY WELL, I THOUGHT THAT VERY MUCH WAS THE PHILOSAPHY FOR UNENROLLED VOTERS. I WAS AIMING TO GIVE THIER PHILOSOPHY NOT A SOAPBOX. IF YOU CAN BETTER GIVE UNENROLLED PHILOSAPHY PLEASE DO IT OR HAVE ME REWRITE IT, BUT DO NOT DELETE IT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinus ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{ nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm listing this here rather than on {{prod}} because a similarly-titled article ( Scott Mathews) is currently on AFD, and I wanted to minimize confusion. This Scott Mattews is a different musician than that, and to the best of my knowledge, he's also a different guy than the genuinely notable drummer for The Derailers. This Scott Matthews is a non-notable singer/songwriter with one album that hasn't been released yet. Googling his name and that of the album turns up only ~15 google hits, and he doesn't have an Allmusic page. We don't have an article on his label (San Remo Records), and a google search for them turned up 74 pages, most of which were either irrelevant or mirrors. Colin Kimbrell 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Cruft game mod-- Zxcvbnm 23:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as copy-paste copyvio by ESkog. Proto|| type 10:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
this is not in english. Maybe this should be transwikied? Wh e re (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
*Translate and keep a not English tag has been placed. Let someone translate it into English.--
Adam
reply
(
talk)
23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable website. Prod removed without an edit summary. --
Rory
0
96
23:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
What's wrong with my site? First of all, you don't need a domain name to have a website. At least, I did have one, TBC! Second of all, I saw all of your username pages: Zoe, Rory 096, TBC, and Daniel and I think your pages are bader than mines. I have a right to post my entry here, just like all 4 of you's. I will updated it soon, so it could meet, ur... "Wikipedia Standards." Also I don't know what your doing because, Zoe you are so mean. You deleted 2 of my pages. If you even what to delete this entry, I would have to delete your's and talk with Wikipedia. Same goes for Rory096, Daniel, TBC, and Wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam72991 ( talk • contribs)
I'm not threating you. I'm just saying, your userpage is also advertistment of yourself and I don't delete it. Thanks Simon for letting us see your interesting username page. Anyway, yes I will put press releases about Pageant Beauties so it won't violate the Wikipedia Policy.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Google search brings zero hits, author admits subject is obscure and without sources. wikipediatrix 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An obscure target of vandalism, List of people with ADHD is not only not notable, but consists of six uncited and most likely unverifiable statements, and a (hidden) message that any more uncited examples will be considered, and reverted as, vandalism.
If you came here looking for the November 2012 AFD of this article, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender (2nd nomination).
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 5 April 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}} . |
Definition plus etymology plus examples of usage still equals a dictionary definition. It's also a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Sounds like made-up nonsense, no references, no Google relevant hits Gu 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply