The result was delete.--Wizardman 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious slang term. Would redirect to Jock itch but article makes no mention of fungal infection which is principal in that syndrome. Listing for community input. No Vote exolon 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't apparently 'indescriminate information', and this list is pretty much that. It would be near impossible to complete (there must be thousands of video games not released in the USA), especially as the criteria is so broad that stuff like Animal Forest (the Japanese version of Animal Crossing, which was released in the US on the Gamecube) or alterernative versions of games like Kingdom Hearts 2 - Final Mix are included. FredOrAlive 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Mailer diablo[5]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another indiscriminate "pop culture" spinoff article. Nothing but a list of every time this particular drug is mentioned in some obscure song or movie; plenty of OR and entries of questionable notability.
I am also nominating the following nearly identical pages for the same reason:
— Krimpet (talk/review) 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged. kingboyk 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two dictionary definitions, complete with the strangest/funkiest looking redirect I've ever seen. kingboyk 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD should be closed.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Harryboyles 03:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an article that appeared in TV Guide. Non-notable, only references to it are in blogs or trivial sources. Incidentally, if people create articles I think they should at least name them accurately, rather than an interpretation of the original (compare the title to the actual TV Guide cover).
(Similar to yesterday's nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever). Croxley 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Wafulz 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page should be kept. It is about a verifiable (if not fashionable) political body, links to other appropriate articles, and documents a real cultural group about which Americans probably know little. I'm not really sure why it was included for deletion? Markwiki 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep large Australian company --Scott Davis Talk 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural listing, it was speedied without notification, which I disagree with, and hence restored it. However, I'm also not able to improve it beyond its present content, due to my lack of comprehension of the financial dailies and the like, although it *does* merit more as a large Australian corporate player - I created it as I was amazed it didn't have an article. The present version of the article is slightly better than the one that got speedied, but my main newspaper archive seems to have dropped AFR :(. I'll leave it for the community to decide what to do with it. Orderinchaos78 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible speedy keep as the nominator wants to keep it and no-one has favoured deleting it.Capitalistroadster 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. There are arguments for deletion, merger, and retention; arguments for notability of the topic are persuasive, but should be documented better in the article by formal citation. It is unclear whether the article should be merged or kept as a stand-alone article based on arguments presented. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 2 April 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)) . |
This article is too umimportant, and having a million views on youtube doesn't change that and neither does it being a parody of a popular videoRodrigue 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. It seems to be an article about one joke made on one episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I can't find any reference to Jesus Lincoln anywhere else. Mysdaao 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I verified the existence of several news articles establishing notability by adding links to them in the reference set. Notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) established. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of why he is notable. No references, and has only released independent albums. Google search results came back with a relatively small amount. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. Croxley 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was broken beyond repair. The page had been moved to an non-existent userpage; to clean all of this mess up, the page has been moved to a user subpage of the creator, and the four or so redirects along the way have been tagged for speedy deletion. As it is now a user subpage, it is pointless to continue this discussion here. If you want to nominate the user subpage for deletion, you may do so at MfD. Instead, I advise that we educate our creator how she can improve that would-be article to a status worthy of Wikipedia. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what this is; it's pretty confusing, but it seems to be some kind of vanity article presented as fiction, created by a user with the same name as the article. Masamage 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, article updated! Please go to Haruko Lisa Haruhara to read updated version. This should clear up most of the confusion. Please notify if any confusion spots that need to be explain in the article in more detail. Thanks. Updated as of March 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 PM PDT Haruko 05:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and protect, closed early per unanimous consensus (and 5 previous speedy deletions). For future reference, the article in its entirety read: "Xbox 720 is a possible name for Microsoft's upcoming console, which will be the successor to the Xbox 360, and is expected to be released in the 2010 - 2011 time frame." Sandstein 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Xbox 360 has been out only a little over a year. It will probably be 4-5 before any actual info about its successor comes out. Let's wait until then, instead of making random claims. Theshoestore 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable building. Less than 100 ghits, and many of those that exist seem to be for an apartment building in New York City. Lankiveil 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion by 198.138.41.54, with this message: non-notable indy wrestler; if for some reason this page does not qualify for speedy deletion, could somebody please put it up for afd? I can't because I don't have an account and don't wish to make one. Thank you. I'm not sure it is speedyable, so I'm bringing it here as asked. No opinion from me. – Qxz 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be promotional material for a non-notable product. Only ghits for "Scalent Server Repurposing Software" or "Server Repurposing Software" seem to refer back to Wikipedia. Lankiveil 04:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted by Sandestein Speedy deleted per (CSD g12), was a blatant copyright infringement
Reads like promotional material for a non-notable realtor Lankiveil 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn school,no attributed sources, no assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some industry-specific notability alleged, but seems to be mostly V/advertisement. Sneftel 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Many of the 'Keep' arguments are not terribly strong, but the point that it appears to meet WP:MUSIC is well made. While sourcing could be improved, it does seem likely that more reliable sources will be available in the reasonably near future. Shimeru 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:MUSIC, no third-party, reliable sources. RJASE1 Talk 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB, I don't see a reason for notablility here. Has already been deleted once in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PPStream —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. We cannot cobble an article together on the basis that a number of artists have called themselves "DJ Mystik"- it must be shown that one or more such artist is notable. If necessary this page could one day be a disambiguation page. However the notability of the artist presently described under that title (in terms of WP:BAND) has not been established. WjBscribe 08:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a DJ whom no verifiable or attributable information is available, failing WP:ATT/WP:V. Searching google for the phrases "tony tran" and "dj mystik" yields only Wikipedia and mirrors. Googling without phrases just brings up thousands of unrelated results. As is, there are no sources cited in the article. It doesn't seem he was ever signed to any labels or had any media coverage, so delete as failing WP:BAND and verifiability in general. Wickethewok 07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns over notability Sfacets 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or an index of tables of contents of publications. Otto4711 07:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a long-time reader of the Journal, and have found this list useful. Perhaps it could be expanded with interesting quotes, or merged with the Comics Journal article Rhinoracer 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Useful to some editors it may be but it does not belong here. Perhaps it could be rewritten and expanded into a list of issues and their main themes/interviews but even in that context I feel it may not belong here. Robbielatchford 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person who nominated this article for deletion, against all policy, hasn't bothered to justify his nomination.
That said: Weak Keep. The Comics Journal is as close as comics have to a scholarly journal, and its interviews are a significant (arguably, renowned) part of that. Although I agree with many of the delete votes that the article in its current state is inappropriate, I can't help but feel that improving the article -- perhaps so that it is no longer a list -- is the direction to go with this one. ~CS 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable magazine and an academic source. The Journal is a respected, quality publication with a solid history in comics journalism and criticism, an its interview subjects (such as the likes of Robert Crumb, Harvey Kurtzman etc.) are definitely more notable than the list of people in Playboy. Counterrestrial 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per the sentence that describes the article: This is a list of locations, characters, items, and other terms from the anime/manga series One Piece. As I read through alot of the article, it appears to be just a dumping ground for anything One Piece related. A form of listcruft/fancruft in my opinion. Also: it should be noted, there is character and location (as well as plenty of other One Piece lists) on Wikipedia already. This list seems to be just repeating alot of information, that's listed elsewhere. RobJ1981 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does this do that a category can't? —Ocatecir Talk 08:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure it meets WP:WEB. Secondly, it reads like an advert. Even the external links are advert-like. And a similar page was deleted in December 2006. I'm posting this here because I admit I'm not up on this kind of stuff. And maybe this is just something big that I've never heard of. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Islamic dietary laws, which I went and did already. Will be a redirect now.--Wizardman 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion was suggested by User:Matt57 on my talk page, who started Islam and pork. This article is similar in that it has little to no real content and also has a POV statement about Muslim youth drinking to seem more "western" (it goes without saying that there have always been Muslims who drink alcohol since the beginning of the religion, since every society of earth has had alcohol since the dawn of time). Whatever. Simply an unnecessary article considering Islamic dietary laws. Khorshid 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELET. i WIL aD A LiNK aT SIMPLIFiD SPeLiNG xO, aND MAK IT A REDiReKT. Herostratus 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Novel concept, but IPA it isn't. Only people who've written about this are its creators, making this unsourceable through reliable sources. Was deleted via prod earlier but recreated, so it's here. - Bobet 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm the author of the article. I'm fairly new to Wiki, so forgive me if I don't understand everything. My Intention in posting it is to explain Nooalf in a succinct manner to people who don't want to spend the time reading the Nooalf website. It's also a matter of matching the style to the audience. You will immediately note that the website is not the usual scholarly desertation you would expect for such subjects.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here: Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate Encyclopedia. More info and especially newer info than a paper encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. So is it not a good thing that people can get the basic facts about Nooalf here?
I will try to be brief in addressing the above comments:
No, it isn't the IPA. The IPA was made in an era when sound recording was not a practical matter for linguists. Today, transcribing the odd vocalizations of remote tribes is not neccassary, and the entire activity is probably near extinction. Although it is not intended to encompass all possible sounds of the human speach organs, Nooalf does provide ordinary people with a keyboard friendly means to write what they hear. It's based on English, which has more phonemes than most other languages, so it covers most languages fairly well. Plus, sticking to it's basic philosophy, more letters must be added to if needed.
The use of the term 'Unsourcable' seems to imply that something must become widespread before inclusion in Wiki. If somebody searches 'nooalf' I think they would probably want to get the info from the world's foremost authority. Judging from my samplings of the fantastic width, breadth and depth of the information contained in Wiki, you don't require the imprimature of degreed scholars for everything.
I'm not sure why you reference the Dvorak keyboard. However, Nooalf is typable on all ordinary keyboards in either the QWERTY layout or Dvorak.
About Wikifying the article. I would appreciate it if you could add it to the appropriate catagories and lists.
I've read the guidelines for articles to be included in Wiki and can see how Nooalf could fail on the source requirements. Although Noo alf is discussed in many places on the web and the chart is available from at least 1 other source, there is no real paper coverage that I know of. I don't know how much leeway you have in your decisions, but maybe you could take a few days to consider this. Maybe listen to Closer To The Heart by Rush. But, Merge and redirect is OK by me.````JO 753
I first researched spelling reform on the internet in 1999 to see what was already in existence. Joining the Saundspel group and getting critiques from the other reformers is currently the highest level of peer review you can find on this subject. You may be able to find archived discussions from 1999 thru 2001 about Nooalf. (I don't seem to be able to do anything with Yahoo. If you forget your password and secret answer, you're screwed!) Also, you could check with Joe Little at ALC. ````JO 753 3-30-2007
The result was delete.--Wizardman 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The player is not notable at all. He does not satisfies the criteria of WP:BIO which says for players who have played in a fully proffessional league. Cyprus league is not fully proffessional. user:KRBN 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's father. Doesn't qualify for an article. Sfacets 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC
The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable university mahjong club. Contested speedy. Guinnog 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied in good faith - "no unsourced article on a low-budget soft porn comedy film that made absolutely no assertion of notability (CSD A7), and just about every name in the list of cast was redlinked (itself an indication of how important the topic is)" by JzG. Probably should have been debated (shrug) so sending here.--Docg 12:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a description of an attack from the Pokemon games, it is game guide and violates WP:NOT Bhamv 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This war has never happened and is only hypothetical. Even the Israeli-Lebanon War was not classified as a war until nearly weeks into the 2006 conflcit. No attempt has been made to create a Iran War page even though that as recevied much mroe attention and is more likely. In addition the only edits to this page have been made by radical conservatives, and the enitre page seems to promoting a view point. --Stalin1942 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G7: author blanked the article. A Train take the 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has been asserted. However, it seems to fail the notability criterion (google search) May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
This is an extremely non-notable software considering that a Google search returns no other results (other than Wikipedia and mirrors) that mention it together with its creator. [30] Its proposed deletion was contested with the reason "This piece of software is not open source, so there are no internet sites where a person can download it. Sales of this product are currently only available in Australia, not from internet sites." which really does not address the key point - that there are no independent write-ups of this software from reliable sources. Whether the software can be downloaded online was, and is, irrelevant. Resurgent insurgent 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE the content but recast as a redirect to yearbook and merge a bit (the opening sentences) into that article. Herostratus 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for deletion because the page is un-sourced, culturally biased, poorly written and not relevant to wikipedia as it is a very minor subsection to yearbooks as a whole and does not meet notability criteria. The use of a question as a categorisation on the page to then comprise a list, this is not productive pros that wikipedia aspires too. I think far too much work is required for this page to be salvaged and the notability of the subject as a stand alone is unjustified.--Jjamesj 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page, makes no assertion of notability. Hairy Dude 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod with statement "Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Unsourced. Not notable.", was removed with out addressing concerns. Jeepday 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, I couldn't find any other information about it. AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 15:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced stub, doesn't appear to be a notable surname. Addhoc 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE, and recast as a redirect to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Cannot redirect to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis#Children because redirects currently ignore section titles (I'll write it that way, though, as the software may be able to do this someday). Redirecting to Jackie rather than Jack because Arabella Kennedy is mentioned in Jackie's article.
While perhaps not G4 Speedy as repost, it is basically the same article, generally, albeit with more material. So in closing I allowed myself to take into account the comments on the earlier article. But I would have closed the same regardless anyway. Herostratus 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted via AfD, but since then a different (as opposed to identical) article has appeared, making it ineligible for CSD G4 (deletion of recreated content). A dispute has broken out over the merit of the article, so as a neutral party I am bringing it to AFD so it can be reviewed by a wider user base. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A stub about a physician. The article provides no reason to think he's notable in any way (other than having once expressed an opinion). Lee Hunter 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly non-notable. Merely a group of friends doing a class project. Edits following notability tag proceeding toward vanity. Feeeshboy 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. I don't see this as a straight Keep because there are too many hedges around some of the keep comments - not to many editors want to keep the article as it is, rather (those that don't want to straight-out delete it) desire some fixments, which may or (more probably) may not be forthcoming. No prejudice against a renomination at some future time. Herostratus 03:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I clean-up a lot of disambiguation pages, but this dab page is problematic. The page's purpose is namely to help people disambiguate "Greatest Hits" albums. After I had cleaned up this page per MoS:DAB and went for the disambiguation of pages under Special:Whatlinkshere/Greatest_Hits, I noticed pretty fast that this dab page was NO help and that more and more to-disambiguate GH albums (non-existant yet) of rather less notable artists showed up and should also be included on the dab page now. Out of curiosity, I checked Special:Allpages/Greatest_Hits (a index page that lists all existing wikipedia articles starting with the letters "Greatest_Hits"), and that list was enormous. I am nominating this dab page not to get it deleted in the first place but to gain consensus whether it should be trimmed or to get to know more ways to make the dab page more helpful for disambiguation purposes. Because as it stands now, it doesn't fulfill its purpose and makes disambiguation even harder. (See also Talk:Greatest Hits#Cleanup.) – sgeureka t•c 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as unsalvageably incoherent (CSD G1). The well may indeed be notable enough for an article but until it can be written clearly enough to be understood (and verified) this one has to go. WjBscribe 08:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-notable well in Peru. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway.--Wizardman 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The son of a drug dealer and Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby before she became a public person. Not a member of the royal family and not a public person himself. Spacecrowd 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 08:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person per WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 16:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:CSD candidate which I declined due to a vague assertion of notability and a ((hangon)). kingboyk 16:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article about a skyscraper owned by Cleveland State University. It's not even one of the taller buildings in Cleveland, as it is 13th. Clearly non-notable. R.smithson 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. If that page wasn't nonsense I am Jimbo Wales' sockpuppet. kingboyk 17:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Original research throughout. Marshwell102 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Absent any sources describing the organization (beyond a stale blog) an actual article is surely an impossibility. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This organization is not notable. A Google search brings up nothing regarding this organization other than the Wikipedia page itself: [35]. It was obviously created to promote this organization and not for the sake of an encyclopedia entry. The User who created this article simply registered for one day to edit the page of the founder of this organization and to create this page and made no edits afterwards: [36], which makes one believe that this User was working on behalf of the organization itself. Again, this article is not note worthy to be on Wikipedia and was simply created for promotional purposes. Azerbaijani 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the above.Azerbaijani 17:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first it seems an aparent copyvio, and every organization considers itself "important". Even if it has only 10 members. You need to support your view, by third party sources. --Pejman47 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "organization" is nothing but a webpage maintained by fantics. It is not significant enough for an encyclopedic entry. Arash the Bowman 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, unverifiable, probable hoax/joke article. Slig303 17:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A table in fruitless search for an article. The information here is already present on the two aircraft articles, so there's nothing to merge. This is unsourced, unverified information, and basically unencyclopedic. I'm an active member of WP:AIR and this doesn't even come close to fitting any Project standards. Akradecki 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam for NN website doing little else but scraping Google News for stories mentioning Bhutan. Bramlet Abercrombie 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. Undeleted from a CSDA7 because of nagging by creator. No claim of notability beyond having acted in porn films, no independent third party reviews of her work. She fails all the "Valid criteria" in WP:PORNBIO. We need to remember WP:BLP in these cases and weigh how much useful information is in these articles against the possible harm they can do to living people. This article makes no case for her being anything more than your standard run-of-the-mill porn actor. Delete. Mak (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD G1; obvious sock-supported hoax. A Traintake the 22:05, 27 March 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)) . |
No proof of notability, google turns up zero hits for "xenoharbingers" Diletante 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A table in fruitless search for an article. The information here is already present on the two aircraft articles, so there's nothing to merge. This is unsourced, unverified information, and basically unencyclopedic. I'm an active member of WP:AIR and this doesn't even come close to fitting any Project standards. Akradecki 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local game, only relevant details from wikipedia:reliable sources are about the stir over just one letter to a major newsletter complaining about it. example description I'm not sure we need an article for everything students do in school that have caused letters to be written in newspapers. Resurgent insurgent 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Wafulz 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about the slang term "baller", it is unsourced, and therefore violates Wikipedia:Attribution. The slang term obviously exists, but unless there is enough sourced content on this to write an article, this should be deleted/redirected somewhere, as it's already been transwikied to Wiktionary Xyzzyplugh 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotional, conflict of interest. Notability not established; does not include references that satisfy WP:A. — ERcheck (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per A3/G11/take your pick. Salting in a minute. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been speedied and deleted before, yet it has come back. Let's decide on this one, please, and salt if deemed necessary. Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Discussion of a possible merge/redirect is a separate editorial decision that can be undertaken at the talk page. Shimeru 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant original synthesis. See the talk page, where it comes out that this is based entirely on playing the games in question and drawing conclusions. As a result, this article is a constant source of edit warring over whose interpretation is correct, with no possible end in sight because there aren't any sources from which to build this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ...you can't even put a damn AfD up properly >_>. Anywho, there's a keep vote from me, because it was decided in the past not to delete the Super form articles, or to merge them with their regular counterparts as it only inflates the article. Also, there's a second super article which appears to be untouched. Deleting the game article and leaving the comic article is sure to start massive chaos. Also, all of the Sonic articles suffer the same "problem" so the only real way to solve it is to delete them all.GrandMasterGalvatron 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn, no-one other than the nominator recommends deletion). Iamunknown 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (This is a non-administrator closed discussion.)[reply]
The article does not assert notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains no factual information. It is unverifiable and predictive Mallanox 19:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Duplicate of a copyvio-challenged article. kingboyk 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is nonsense or not. Seems like listcruft either way. kingboyk 19:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My closure edit conflicted with this additional comment:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax article - the song was never released as a single. The chart positions, release dates, track listings, video synopsis etc. have been completely made up. Extraordinary Machine 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Princess Bride (film). Veinor (talk to me) 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. There are thousands of bands; article does not note significant accomplishments, such as recordings, chart positions, records sales, etc. Appears to be self-promotional. Ward3001 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, though if it is the largest mall in Labrador, put it in the article.--Wizardman 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD Yanksox 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable road. John254 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 309A was closed as no consensus. 66 was closed keep, but there were certainly dissents, though in the minority.DGG 05:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic and in violation of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The ((move to wikibooks)) tag has existed since June of 2006, and all current information has already been transwikied there, leaving this page a superfluous and inappropriate historical repository; all future information should be directly inserted to Wikibooks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And copyvio, to boot. Rhinoracer 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No result. Closed as AfD was initiated by a sock of the banned User:Hkelkar. Aksi_great (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to nominate this article for deletion.The reasons are many and I itemize them below
Birdsmight 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article relates not to a professional sport but to a relatively minor high school sporting competition. It's notability and inportance are minor and does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Delete Gillyweed 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Wafulz 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not present verifiable evidence of the company's notability A. B. (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, IMO not even worth transwiki-ing - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for notability, you be the judge. Also appears to be an autobiography. GregorB 10:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 09:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism, created by author PumeleonT 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wizardman 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no links to this page and content does not seem meaningful or encyclopaedic GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as a copyright violation from uc.edu from its very first edit. The only text that has been changed in a year and a half is the first sentence stating the names of his wife and children. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable professor. Probably an autobio (I mean, who else would throw in info about the name of his kids (!) and of forthcoming (!!) publications?). Also, I'd like to preempt the arguments that his work has been cited and that he therefore meets WP:PROF: every academic (except the ones who are not active in research) publish a lot and get cited a lot. That's just the nature of their work. The fact is there is no evidence provided that this article can be built on solid sources as WP:ATT asks us to do. Pascal.Tesson 22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN autobiography of a 15yo. Note that I deleted the obviously unencyclopedic content; previous version is here. Contested prod and previously broken AfD nomination by Donignacio (talk · contribs). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Strangerer (Talk) 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eve Laurence is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, based on the pornographic actors' notablility criteria. wL<speak·check> 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of person of local interest; without supporting citations to establish notability recommend that a very brief item (line item) be added to Everton F.C. indicating the existence of the post this person holds and the person currently holding it. Article found tagged with Speedy via criterion G11 (I do not agree with that criterion) and with a 'hold-on' template in place from the author. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate list, original research. —tregoweth (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Delete per WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:REDFLAG.
The result was delete.--Wizardman 20:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in the style of an advertisement. John254 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smitheys1 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Characters of Oblivion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters of Oblivion. Arguments on the talk page have convinced me not to necessarily consider deleting the article, but I'm quite confident it does not deserve its own article; I've also suggested fixing up the article be removing non notable information, which I cannot do myself, due to great lack of knowledge of Knights of the Nine, but no one has done so. Like I said, I'd like to see this merged into the "Characters of Oblivion" article, but, if deleting it becomes the consensus, that is fine by me. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help me or not, this article is about a main character, not simply a side-character! ♣ ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 22:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (DB-SPAM). wL<speak·check> 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no assertion of notability for this article, and it appears to read like an advertisement. No sources or references are cited for this. sunstar nettalk 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]