This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Timwi 15:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 14:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you in advance for your help in this matter
Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal Age of the source and rate of change of the subject—Where a subject has evolved or changed over time, a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and if that change has impacted any of the salient points of the source information. self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
You will note that Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis are both bloggers, and both IIM alumnus, which makes them biased against IIPM. Further, JAMMAG is self-published by Rashmi. And finally, Rashmi is a contributing editor in Businessworld. And lets not forget, she's currently under arrest for libel in Bombay for comments in JAMMAG.
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as ((citation needed)), please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.
Here is an example from an article I deleted: "The most recent disaster that <name omitted> claims his organization has responded to is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, although there is no convincing evidence that he or any of his team has been there.[citation needed]"
The result was keep. If you want people to clean up an article, use ((cleanup)), not ((afd1)). Kimchi.sg 15:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually i nominate this article so people would get nervous and actually improve the article to prevent it from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss purple (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 December 2006
--Rifleman 82 21:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 15:25Z
Created by User:Ckasmarzyk, about a WW II veteran who "neutralized Omaha Beach", whatever that means. User:72.195.142.115 added a claim about Kasmarzyk receiving the medal of honor, which I disputed. I prodded the article, and User:Ckasmarzyk blanked it. Morally this should be a "speedy deletion", but it does not quite fit G7 because of the anonymous edit. Aleph-4 12:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as web content with no assertion of notability (CSD A7). — TKD::Talk 03:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best, NN comic series. Probable hoax or self-created. JLaTondre 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article on unfilmed movie, composed of weasel words ("it is expected", "likely"). WP:CRYSTAL applies. PROD tag added, but removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with the comment "doesn't meet crystal ball guidelines". Calton | Talk 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 05:27Z
NN-game that is labled with a NN-neologism already slated for deletion produced by a NN-corporation which I am also nominating. This program fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additionally WP:NOT a crystal ball, and article fails to assert notability, lacks sources of anykind say much less verifiable independant third party ones.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 15:26Z
NN-developer that fails WP:CORP who's only claim to fame is a NN-game that fails WP:SOFTWARE. No assertion of notability or third party sources.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Resume by User:Alindley, of doubtful notability Aleph-4 01:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 07:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an encyclopedia article. Is it a plan for a new numbering scheme? A service that you can order for your telephone? Aleph-4 01:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Tonywalton | Talk 09:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not even exist yet. Aleph-4 01:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Cesária Évora per WP:COPYVIO and No Context and Redirect to Barefoot Diva. Cbrown1023 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations. See WP:COPYVIO.
if there was a copy vio on michael jackson or madonna would we delete the page- no just revert or edit.Muntuwandi 18:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE THAT I REWROTE THE ARTICLE AND POSTED IT AT Barefoot Diva. I believe that it is free of copywrite violations and could be moved to this location. --Kevin Murray 05:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN program, was a copright violation too before another editor rmoved the list (basically making it a blank page). PROD notice was removed by an anon IP with no explanation. TJ Spyke 01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, A7. --Fang Aili talk 02:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a speedy candidte, but there is a "claim to notability": among the greatest directors in the world. Looks like nonsense to me, given that he is just finishing school. Aleph-4 01:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. My advice would be to expand the article modestly, drawing on the published sources that already exist in the article as references. Articles which have as their primary content lists of recordings do not tell the reader much about the band; this needs to be rectified. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-25 02:01Z
*Delete until they're notable enough to able to secure an interview from someone other than D.Kay.TruthGal 03:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I-am-neither-playa-nor-playa-hater Nomination for deletion
Winner of a celebrity dating VH1 TV show who dumped the celebrity, Flavor Flav as soon as the filming was over (very brief mention in NYTimes article on Flavor Flav:"Although the star found love again last season with Nicole Alexander, a former basketball player he nicknamed Hoopz, the brief union ended after the cameras stopped recording. 'All of a sudden, Hoopz got too busy,' he said, 'and I couldn't get in touch with her.'" - that's the entire mention she gets in the 1800 word article[5]).
Our girl Hoopz has done some dancing in a couple of music videos and was gameshow girl on a MTV gameshow for a bit, some modeling, got a bit part in a movie coming up and auditioning for others, has her own yet-to-be-named reality show coming up real soon which I can't find any trace of (her IMDB page hasn't heard of it either[6]),has been tusslin' with the cops, hates her neighbors, and most importantly, Officially Has A Myspace. Also:"Although her beauty is obvious, she has been noted to have a face that eerily resembles that of Kobe Bryant." (For the record, I feel this comment in the article is HARSH) (On the other hand, she was HARSH on Flavor Flav too)
Only 8 hits for "Nicole Alexander" + Hoopz/Flavor of Love in Factiva news database. ~318 hits on Google with Flavor of Love.~2,030 with Hoopz - including a lot of spam sites/blogs. Fails WP:BIO for her own article. Okay as a mention in the gameshow article Flavor of Love, but most of the content here should be cropped - Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip magazine/Hollywood talent database. Bwithh 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do, of course, agree that the current article is rather bad and gossipy, and I hope that it is improved by someone more knowledgeable than I. Volucris 12:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion Encyclopedically non-notable celebrity dating show contestant, "revealing" model, wrestling show contestant, bit part actress and poet. ~1,030 google hits, but mostly modeling websites/wrestling forums/spammy sites etc. Fails WP:BIO
I am sad that I can't find her poem on the internet. Bwithh 02:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Rufus Wainwright. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 05:24Z
Unsourced crystal balling. Nothing but rumours. Contested prod. MER-C 02:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Already redirected by Twinxor Computerjoe's talk 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a combination of the GPG and tar.gz formats. While it's not too unusal to encrypt compressed data like this, it seems like the formats are adequately discussed on their own articles, and this page doesn't have much to say about the combination. Twinxor t 02:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestling company, fails WP:CORP. 2 non-wiki ghits. Fails WP:V too. Contested prod. MER-C 02:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: delete, redirect left to American Baptist Churches USA where this information is now contained (preservation of edit history not necessary as a simple list like this cannot be copyrighted). --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. Contested prod. MER-C 02:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Bearcat. MER-C 09:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gives no indication of significance... does anyone know what those abbreviations even stand for? Not to mention the fact that the one edit in the history is changing which Richard Stephens the article refers to. Pstinchcombe 03:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as Indiscriminate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unencyclopedic list. Garion96 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SP-KP 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete School production with no assertion of wider notability. Tyrenius 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously prod'ded, and removed. I'm still not seeing the notability here. Danny Lilithborne 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major POV issues (what is an incident? does murder count?). Lots of potential to violate WP:BLP as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like conjecture or fanfiction of supposed Sith/Dark Jedi from Star Wars, the only reference and Google hit is for http://www.darkjedibrotherhood.com/dbjedi/dsc/dark_jedi_orders.html. Not mentioned on Wookieepedia. Canley 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - as the notability of the mural is not questioned in this particular AfD (the only argument for deletion that applies to both is the number of Google hits, which is not a valid argument for keeping or deleting anything), the real decision seems to be whether to merge or not, which AfD does not govern. Editors are free to pursue that if they wish as normal, or to make a joint AfD nomination for both articles which does question the notability of the mural. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nom & vote...
...Del on this n-n war-casualty muralist, whose work is lost or decrepit, and who gets GTest
of which many are garbles or apparent copies from WP.
...Del, unless Merged with Bardia Mural. They are indeed just two angles on one topic, erroneously made each an article, and if the mural is judged notable, merge is a good outcome. The merge would also support a clearer and more orderly consideration of whether the merged Bardia Mural should be deleted for n-n -- which i think it should be, tho that is less screamingly obvious than with the bio.
--Jerzy•t 04:15, 25 & 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to independently source this article. See here and here. The Prod was removed by a third party without a reason being given. I notified the creator of the Prod but that has not produced any sources. Clearly fails WP:V. Delete. TerriersFan 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 05:20Z
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral bump up from contested speedy. There's an assertion to notability on the talk page and this article is one of the external links. No opinion. Kchase T 05:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect to dredg. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 05:17Z
The band is notable, but an unreleased demo tape by them is not. I tagged this for prod: notice was removed without notability being added. Could be a redirect, but how many people will look for an unreleased demo tape? Vizjim 06:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by someone else - crz crztalk 09:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a programmer at Apple Computer, doesn't have much information or seem to assert notability at all. —Cleared as filed. 06:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This is an article about a drinking game that is mostly an unsourced essay about the rules. The game only gets 300 Google hits, none of which appear to be usable as reliable sources. Dylan 06:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 05:16Z
Nomination for deletion Senior Microsoft executive but not senior enough for Wikipedia. His current rank appears to be Senior Vice President, Technical Strategy, one of 9 Senior Vice Presidents on Microsoft's current Senior Leadership Team. He gets quite a bit of tech press/website mentions in the 100,000+ ghits he gets[9], but this is part of his job at a prominent company - communicating Microsoft technical strategy to journalists. This doesn't make him an encyclopedically notable executive though - not even everyone on the Microsoft board of directors (which he isn't) is an encyclopedically notable person Bwithh 06:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 05:15Z
Nomination for deletion Ah, the joys of Wikipedia:Random_page_patrol in turning up such nuggets (end plug). See the Votes for Deletion discussion on this 1985 porno flick from way waaay back in February 2004[10], which revolved around whether Wikipedia is or is not "Pornopedia" (plus some confusion about how to go about verifying the article) and ended in an apparent keep consensus. But let's get back to today and also the nascent guidelines on film notability[11]. How is this film encyclopedically notable? Well, there is a claim that at the time of its international release it was controversial and banned in several countries with significant press coverage (it's not clear why this film in particular is supposed to have been so much more controversial (the underwear sucking? the orgy scene?) than the 1000s of other porn films around). I can't find sources to confirm the controversy. There are 2 hits in the Factiva news database for this title - news stories from July 1986 about the revelation that Traci Lords was underage in a number of films, including this one (which gets a very passing mention). Fails WP:V for claims of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 07:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion, AfD does not govern merges and editors are free to pursue that as usual. I should note that more obviously reliable sources (such as the Hindustan Times) have been added to the article since this AfD began. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, girlfriend of former athlete Oden 08:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 05:01Z
Non-notable biography with little potential for expansion. Computer chess is an interesting field of research, but Nalimov is only a footnote. It is difficult to accurately assess the importance of Nalimov tablebases to chess computing in general, as the format is likely to become an intermediary to some greater solution. The only posited proof of notability, the ChessBase award, is more of a symbollic gesture offered by a small company to up-and-coming enthusiast researchers. It is not a notable award in the chess world and it is not granted by a major chess publication. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, WP:BIO. There aren't multiple non-trivial reliable source about this person. - crz crztalk 09:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Bearcat. MER-C 10:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A page about a living "New York based Artist", whose rather unusual name gets just 34 hits at Google, most of which turn out to be for a presumably unrelated Hawaii-based psychiatrist. The article is modestly written (the capital "A" in artist is probably just a typo) and of course Notability (people) is a mere guideline (as is the possibly relevant WP:AUTO), "Notability (people)" does talk of Painters, sculptors, ... whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field and I see no evidence of this here. I suggest waiting till Giannasio makes a slightly bigger impact. -- Hoary 09:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax; there is no Silver Ferns player with this name ([14]). Ziggurat 10:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. This result does not change depending on whether or not we discount the comments from the people who were contacted on their talk page about this AfD (see this discussion's talk page). Sandstein 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
I nominate the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article for deletion for the following reasons:
If this article IS deleted, being a subarticle of the Dinosaur article, some of it would need to go into that article. I think a simple mention that the antiquity of dinosaurs is rejected by young earth creationists, and those who reject evolution don't believe in the notion that dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern species. As this is basically all the article says anyway, and we can simply link to Creationism and/or creation-evolution controversy in the section, I don't see any reason not to do this. It is not very important to the Dinosaur article, and as it is sufficiently covered by creationism and related articles I see no need for this article, as it isn't really notable in and of itself. Titanium Dragon 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is not the presentation of facts from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. The subject of the article is that such differences of philosophy and opinion exist, and what those differences are. Any belief that is held by a significant number of people is worthy of an encyclopedic article in an encyclopedia that can afford to be as large and diverse as this one. I do think that it would be good to get paragraphs written by people who are familiar with viewpoints other than Jewish and Christian ones. As for the balance of opinion, the article states that within these faiths there is both acceptance and non-acceptance of the scientific assessment of the evidence. Note that I have done a little rewriting, because we are dealing essentialy with belief rather than fact. We now have disagreement with or support for theory or assessment rather than disagreement with "fact". This honours the "fact" that the article deals with "ideas" and has moved from the realm of science to the realm of philosophy. --Amandajm 10:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns. MidgleyDJ 10:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close, take to WP:RfD -SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a hoax, with absolutely no ghits whatsoever for it. It appears to be listcruft or may be an attack page. I suspect this may well be a hoax, because there are no references or sources cited. SunStar Nettalk 11:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:BIO, and there are no sources cited for anything in the article. It appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article, and there is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability. SunStar Nettalk 11:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero google hits; appears to be thinly-veiled promotion of insignificant band; no citations ($150,000 in donations & toys & no mention anywhere on the web? really?) Chris Item 11:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Almost nobody wanted to keep the present content, and the disambiguation links are now at Destroyer (disambiguation). Sandstein 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to Warlock class destroyer and Victory class destroyer. Doesn't appear that there's any information in the stubby article that needs to be merged so just delete it. Otto4711 14:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ---J.S (T/C) 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2 except for the following: o Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works. o Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.
It depends where and what the obituary is. In this case, the obituary in the Times, one of the 2 major UK national newspapers, is 500 words long, with two pictures of LB, one rehearsing the Youth Orchestra, and one more formal portrait. The obituary in the Guardia, ditto in importance, with headline:" Musical idealist whose enthusiasm gave birth to a great European youth orchestra" of 250 words long. These are no mentions in "simple records of birth and death" such a a paid death notice in a local paper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result was I don't care if Monday's blue, Tuesday's grey and Wednesday too, Thursday I don't care about you, It's DeleteDay, I'm in love. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:53Z
WP:NOT an index, per the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient reliable sources indicating why this person meets WP:BIO. Claims seem to be: winning the most medals within his college, a few mentions in the paper (in a section even the paper calls "Madras Miscellany" and which is refuted in another article, so reliability is an issue), and winning a residents' trivia competition (twice!). Unsure of speedy status, but given the benefit of the doubt and brought here. Reads like a suspected WP:COI page. Best of luck to him, but does not appear notable in the medical field yet, based on Google and/or Google scholar. --Kinu t/c 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect to Brand. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:50Z
Essay/how-to guide, originally posted by User:Focusfields - which happens to be the name of a company whose business is brand name creation. Could be a copyvio, but I haven't found a source. FreplySpang 16:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 13:39Z
Notable author, but the paper seems to be NN, as it hasn't really had an impact on UI design. Twinxor t 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Close enough to the original to qualify for CSD G12. -- Steel 23:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the only Buffy episode with a separate "comprehensive synopsis" article. I'm suggesting delete rather than merge because the standard format for Buffy episode articles looks to be a summary plus an "expanded overview" and this level of detailed summary is apparently not desired by those who work most heavily on the Buffy articles, not to mention being a violation of WP:FICT. Allowing for a "comprehensive synopsis" article apart from the main article on the episode would be a terrible precedent and a violation of WP:FICT. Otto4711 16:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. ---J.S (T/C) 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This artist is also known as Hughes Claude Pissarro, H Claude Pissarro, and as Isaac Pomié. Further online research is yielding much good information, leading to a possible support for notability. Please reserve your choices until I can complete some research and rewrite --Kevin Murray 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE This page has been extensively rewritten, and now meets notability guidelines with the following additonal information:
--Kevin Murray 19:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, A7. --Fang Aili talk 01:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A band that "wants to make it big on the rock scene" but does not appear to be sufficiently notable yet. Aleph-4 17:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the current content of the article. This article was started by User:Hamuksha, a new user whose contributions thus far have been centered around this article and placing this article on November 26, 1942, etc. The content of the article does not assert the notability of its subject - no publications, external links, etc. Furthermore, the subject has only 49 Ghits. Thus, there is no indication that Kalfat meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Fabricationary 17:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. There isn't much in the article that could be merged into an article on the university without giving undue weight to the debate society. It seems clear that no one favours the main text standing alone. Therefore, redirect without a merge. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for AfD by ECKnibbs. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 19:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. A neutral verifiable article can't be built without engaging in OR is we have no sources. This game does seem to be on it's "way up," so there is no prejudice against recreating the article should non trivial & reliable secondary sources be found. ---J.S (T/C) 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second nomination for deletion- the first nomination was a bit of a trainwreck that spent more time heckling about minor things than addressing the article. Anyway, I believe that the information in the article is unverifiable from a lack of independent sources and that it does not meet criteria in WP:WEB. Google search doesn't dig up any sources and Google links show 23 unique links, none of which are reliable (ie all blogs and forums). Alexa rank around 135k. Wafulz 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The proceeding is this user's second contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 07:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The proceeding is this user's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 07:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be notable. Lots of ghits but the bulk of them appear to be bloggy and/or ads for bars running a tournament. Otto4711 19:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Međugorje. Bearcat's argument about Our Lady of Fatima seems to have some logic behind it, but I know nothing about the subject matter, so it's difficult for me to evaluate it in context. I'm going to just redirect this to Međugorje for now. The original contents of this article will still be available in the article history, so one or more of the people who argued for a merge can come along and merge whatever material seems appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the notability of someone who supposedly saw the Virgin Mary. Danny Lilithborne 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, there are about 15,000 ghits on the variations of the name (2 basic one in English are: [25], and [26]. There have been multiple coverages of them in the international news. SkierRMH 05:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No valid claim for notability presented, and article is autobiographical. Speedy tag was objected to by User:Samir (The Scope), who recommended AfD, so here it is. I vote Delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, participation in a local tv show game doesn't assert notability.≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, being a participant in the local TV game doesn't assert notability ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 22:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would work better as a category, rather than a list. Ckessler 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ---J.S (T/C) 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would work better as a category, rather than an article. Ckessler 21:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a hoax. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Tubezone with reason - "No references given that can be verified, probable hoax". Proposed for AfD by Wetman. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral Tevildo 23:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:38Z
AfD nominated by 125.237.127.212 with reason - "this is advertising spam." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 23:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn foundation--Thee 3 22:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Concerns of crystalballism were satisfied and no other deletion arguments have been presented. ---J.S (T/C) 21:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Cricket World Cup Citicat 02:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No references; information could be speculative. J Di talk 22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-/- Warren 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:35Z
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:34Z
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the deletion of the article Gay Nigger Association of America (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)), I'd say that this article likewise needs to be deleted. And I for one won't be a bit disappointed to see it go, as Wikipedia should be above giving unwarrented publicity to internet trolls.--Azer Red Si? 22:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needed like, what, 10-18 or so Vote For Deletions until they got the GNAA article deleted. That says quite a bit about this "democracy", in which we need to vote again and again until we get the results we want. LOL. --Iconoclast 18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn app. Google 53hit. Ziwuen 22:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 04:32Z
This is a list that would be better served by being a category. At best, delete, at worst, keep pending categorization. Dennisthe2 23:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No references whatsoever or assertion of the notability of these sites/videos/pranks. The terms used to designate the different kinds of computer pranks (e.g. "loss of control" pranks) are neologisms. In short, this "article" is nothing but a collection of original research and links to non-notable videos and shock sites. This isn't YouTube. This is an encyclopedia.--Azer Red Si? 23:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO —Swpb talk contribs 23:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Bundle everyone else from List of Countdown champions in with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.244.185 (talk • contribs) [reply]
: Additional comment: WP:AFD says "Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: An article about any topic and other articles with the same content but with different titles." I do not feel that Mark Nyman, which is implied as part of this makeshift bundle, and Richard Brittain have the same content. Therefore, there should not have been a bundle added on to this nomination (I would remove it myself, but I don't want to be seen as vandalizing a deletion discussion by "removing" a nomination). Andy Saunders 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, does not assert its own notability, was prodded twice ([32], [33]), but twice removed by the same IP. Dar-Ape 23:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]