The result of the debate was Merge. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
seems to be copy n pasted and is about relatively unknown child actors. --Phil 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was consensus to merge. I merged it with Characters of Lost, as the main article seemed inappropriate. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a character from a book related to Lost. The book bears little connection to the series' main arcs, and this character does not appear in the series. It's essentially non-notable fanon. Since the character is not shown on the series or connected to an official website, it does not merit inclusion (via merge and redirect) on Characters of Lost. I think a delete is in order. Baryonyx 06:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
These might not be big enough to warrant an article... --Wonderfool 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge to MuggleNet. bainer (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Subject of article is webmaster of MuggleNet. Although MuggleNet is notable enough, the webmaster is not, particularly since all the information on the page is from the Mugglenet website. The article has numerous photographs that are copyrighted and whose use is questionable, at best. Jtmichcock 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
this was part of my coursework, and was put on here somehow (not by me!). In our coursework we have to source everything, but come up with our own definition of water potential. I came up with this, it was put on here (thus becoming something I should source - but I couldn't, as our own definitions had to be exactly that - our own and original). So if it is not deleted then it is possible I could have taken it off here, as there is no proof that it was me that was using that IP when it was put on (even thought it was). Gjay 19:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Can someone tell me how this is not just a convoluted and confusing special case of chemical potential as applied to water? If so I suggest that the article state as much and refer to a discussion of chemical potential. If this is special notation in common (?!) use then that should also be stated. As far as I know there is nothing special in this formulation that applies only to water and not to arbitrary solvents/liquids. I suspect that this concept is obsolete and of merit for understanding older thermodynamic literature. However, if this is the case, it should be made clear. Certainly it seems odd that a "potential" should have dimensions of pressure.
67.85.203.239 01:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
how do I "speedy delete"?
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirected to properly finish the merge per policy, see links below. - Mgm|(talk) 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have completed a merge of this page's remaining significant information over to the more-complete Decision support system article. I believe that this article is now redundant and can be deleted; it is an orphan and so does not even need a redirect. Steve Summit (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Hoax and/or nonsense as pointed out in Talk:Mass of Lightning -- JimR 05:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
None of which have anything to do with lightening or the correct field of science. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Second Coming. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is a "book in progress," so it should be an "article nonexistent." JHMM13 (T | C) 05:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic. Can never be more than an essay, and will always be NPOV challanged Ezeu 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Grue 17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This existence of this article goes explicitly againstofficial Wikipedia Policy: in particular, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. There is already a Wikipedia Commons page for this purpose. Wiccan Quagga 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Vanity for a semi nnwebsite with little facts and more advertising to it --Reid A. 09:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable writer. 98 hits on Google, most of them referring to different people, Shabnam being a common name and Sharma being a common surname Gurubrahma 09:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I consider a list of postcodes to be of very dubious value on wikipedia given it is derived directly from freely available data from the Australia Post website. Unlike some other lists, this one adds nothing that isn't already available elsewhere in basically the same format. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article appears to be original research, and subject of article is non-notable. Srleffler 03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Mathematical joke (makes more sense than redirecting to October 31). howcheng {chat} 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see the encyclopedic significance of this. Pharos 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Was tagged as speedy candidate with the reason: "Not Notable, promotionion of a singular website which contains large amounts of illegal material (eg alt.sex.stories.pedo)". As far as I can tell, Usenet newsgroups can be notable and containing large amounts of illegal material shouldn't be a reason not to have an article on it. We also have articles on other questionable material. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Detailed descriptions of the various opening sequences of the television series America's Funniest Home Videos. Of interest to no one but intensely obsessive fans of the show. tregoweth 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
These types of articles should not be merged and cause concise articles to be obliterated. Let them have their own page with a link from the title "Trivia" and the hyphen explaining what type. 68.194.42.219 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)TikiWike
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, non-elected politician, vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Bad faith nomination. User:Spinboy nominated this article twice before one ending in "no consensus", the other in "keep". Nothing has changed since then and he presents no new arguments that would change the outcome. Furthermore, there is a policy discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates on this topic of electoral candidates, past and present, where a new argument for deleting this article could emerge. The centralized discussion is not intended to be in this afd. --maclean25 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
He returned to put up an afd on User:Montrealais (and none of the other dozen-odd other Canadian legislative candidates). While back he couldn't resist kicking this article one more time. Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? --maclean25 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No notability established, seems to have constant bits of NN facts added by bored totse members. It does have a lot of google hits, but many of them are for the wikipedia article, and the number is inflated due to it being an internet website... -Greg Asche (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Listed for CSD under the reasoning, "defammatory", thus claiming CSD A6 as a personal attack. But then, it's true, they all do fit a certain mass-related criterion (they're pretty fat, and pretty famous), so we'll open it up for debate. Harro5 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 'Overweight' and 'famous' are too subjective when combined. If there were a criterion by mass or weight or BMI for 'overweight,' and 'famous' was the same as our 'notable,' then it could be debated or considered, but as it stands, there's just too much room for opinion. - CorbinSimpson 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
nn listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. When is this madness going to end? Delete Zunaid 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Modify to maintain manageability. I'd suggest limiting criteria to eponymous albums that have reached a position in an album chart in a definitive recording trade magazine, like Billboard, Cashbox (now defunct) or New Musical Express. In the same vein, I'd recommend a similar Eponymous hit singles as this would be very manageable (if memory serves me correctly, there are only about a dozen fitting this category from Billboard's Hot 100 chart and a relative handful from NME). In both cases, the name of the act and the name of the recording must be identical. B.Wind 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was ambiguous.
The strict "vote count" argues for deletion but Mgm is correct in his assertion that we are required to preserve the attribution history of anything that contributes to an article. This is a requirement of GFDL. At least one edit to the Armenian Genocide article appears to me to have been made with material from this version. Of course, we can not be sure without interviewing every editor - a tactic which is not feasible given the number of anonymous editors to the article.
Comparing the two article histories, I strongly argue against a history-only merger as a way of preserving the attribution history. It would badly confuse the edit history. In this case, I must agree that this sub-page can not be deleted. That brings the "vote count" to 3 to 2 and fails to reach the necessary consensus for deletion. I am going to exercise my discretion, though, and close this discussion as a redirect back to the original article. Rossami (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Working version of heavily edited document. Has been nominated in April, but was a keep because sufficient time hadnt been elapsed to allow for a working version to mature (original discussion to be found here. This working version has seen little activity since. The original article on the Armenian Genocide has been edited extensively and no longer even resembles the working version. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
vanity page Asw32 01:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets in Taylor, Michigan. Article doesn't tell anything about the road which cannot be gleaned from reading a map. Wikipedia is not a road map. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I realize that chocolate pudding is notable enough to warrant mention on Wikipedia, but this article is so brief as to be almost empty. Plus the author makes a claim and provides no reference for the claim. The statement "Currently, the top-selling brand of chocolate pudding is manufactured under the Jell-O® brand by the Kraft Foods Corporation." the author needs to date that statement, and provide a reference. So I suggest Delete and any relevant information can be combined into an article about puddings.TheRingess 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't deserve its own article. Perhaps a merge into Star Trek: First Contact. Delete, JHMM13 (T | C) 07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no concensus --Ichiro 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
moved to Pedophilia advocacy on the basis of consensus forming here. AfD template still directs here -- not trying to circumvent process. James James 10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete or merge with pedophilia. Neologism. Euphemism for pedophilia coined by Lindsay Ashford. Google shows virtually all the hits for "childlove" are from dupes of the wikipedia article and from Lindsay Ashford's puellula.org website. The article is inherently POV, and largely written by Ashford (who is on wikipedia as User:Zanthalon). The title is non-neutral as it is a euphemism. Homey 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
// paroxysm (n)
21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)// paroxysm (n)
21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)// paroxysm (n)
21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)// paroxysm (n)
21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)// paroxysm (n)
21:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
//paroxysm (n)
21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
// paroxysm (n)
05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)// paroxysm (n)
18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)// paroxysm (n)
20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Keep. I will give an example: In democtatic contries one can find Nazi and Communsit parties. The reasons for they existance are many, including the right of political freedom and the fact that these parties are indicators of the general political state in a given country (i.e. if their popularity start going up, it means that the mainstream politicians do something wrong). A similar argument can be put in the present case. First, if there are peple paying attention to the childlove movement, it is an indicator that it has a political basis, regardless how small it can be. Second, if the arguments of the "movement" are weak, then it will be easy for everyone to refute them again and again. -User:Nllsq (moved from talk page. first edit)
There is another one that advocates sex between women and young girls. --Gbleem 08:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
// paroxysm (n)
19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)// paroxysm (n)
02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Per some of the above arguments, changing my vote from Jesus H. Christ to O... M... G!!!!
Carry on! Herostratus 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Redirect. --Ichiro 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
My first AFD of 2006. Nonencyclopedic, totally POV ... really could have speedied this somehow but the author would learn better what should go on Wikipedia if I put it here. Daniel Case 07:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Tragic, but being killed in this violent way does make the individuals notable. -- RHaworth 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, as the names of the victims takes up most of the article, many people could think that it is a memorial, but if you read it, you will see that there is more information (that has to be emproved and expanded, I know).
<!-- * [[Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings]] -->
(as you can see in this edition of an old version of the article), claiming for such an article.Well, thank you, principally if you had enough patience to read till here! Eynar Oxartum 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
"largely unsubstantiated or unverified content" (User:Tiksustoo). bumped from speedy. No vote. r3m0t talk 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. JeremyA 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Autobiography. Subject is only 23 or 24, username is "messany" - identical to subject of article. Anabanana459 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced, not encyclopedic, unlikely to be expanded, not a likely search term, not required as a redirect. I reccomend delete. brenneman(t)(c) 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to freemasonry since there's no consensus to delete, it has been merged and a redirect is the simplest means of GFDLing it. -Splashtalk 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was KEEP, with a subst: into the article. -Splashtalk 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Game guide - fancruft. Orphaned page, not really used. Werdna648T/C\@ 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was DELETE, Babajobu 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable group of kids Drdisque 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Austin 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)SirAus Sorry, but I beleive it entirely depends on what one defines by non-notable. This group is one of the most widely known reenacting groups in Virginia. I'm new here, so I don't really understand the criteria for deletion or non-deletion. Is it because this group isn't known outside of the reenacting arena or what?
The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Nearly blank list that is devalued in comparison to its category. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
comment CSD-A1 is short articles: Articles #1 "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. A search engine may help in determining context and allow for the article's expansion." One name lists would qualify under that section. As for no history I was primarily speaking of T. Anthony who initially stepped up proclaiming an active interest handling this article. At the time I posted that I did not know others had shown an interest in or stepped up to edit on that article. At this point I am flexible on keeping the article or not. I would suggest that a list should be more than a list and include actual text on the arts in Japan. New question is why can this not be added to the Japanese Art article? -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Unnecessary list, and it only has one bluelink anyway. Category:Norwegian photographers is perfectly satisfactory as a repository. Stifle 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Original Research. Eugman 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Redirects are cheap, and we need to retain the page history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There were two Landscape disambiguation pages, Landscape and Landscape (disambiguation). With the creation of Landscape art (which was Landscape painting), making Landscaping into a disambiguation page, and redirecting all the redirects, this page is now unnecessary. Sparkit 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Mgm makes some good points for keeping, but many of the keep arguments have been refuted, and I find it persuasive that most of the users favouring a keep have changed their minds. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
Delete, Autobiographical vanity page Will 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
In November 2004, Cochran won the ire of writers worldwide when he sent private messages to thousands of NaNoWriMo participants, on the NaNoWriMo forum, pleading to place spurious reservations for his books at booksellers so he would be assured a sum of money per reservation. [30]
He produced a new justification for each time he reverted it. I'm not going to push myself over 3RR with this, but if he feels there's a problem, he needs to put up a factual accuracy boilerplate instead of deleting arbitrary paragraphs. Will 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
An incoherent vanity page?
The result of the debate was redirect to G-man (slang). Mailer Diablo 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
was on CSD, thought AFD would suit better-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*Redirect to G-men. (aeropagitica) 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Appears to be a list created just for the sake of having such a list, and/or of interest to very few people. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 11:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Apart from being redundant since categories already exist, this list will never be complete, and gives a false impression of noted Thai schools. Paul C 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Is a dictionary definition Meandmyself 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep, following re-write. BD2412 T 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Redundant to Category:UML tools; WP is not a list of links Karnesky 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
* Delete per nom. Avi 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep If you delete this, the content will appear inside UML Tool. This also adds more information that the category as it allow for a brief description of the tool. It's also somethign that is useful. Mjchonoles 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Non-notable as written Avi 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Redundant to Category:Accounting software Karnesky 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep this crap. Ifnord 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There is already an entry on Wiktionary for crap. This article has been and remains marked as Move to Wiktionary. If it is already on Wiktionary than it should be deleted from here in favor of the Wiktionary entry. Further, I do not see that this article is anymore than an elaborate dictdef as was purported when the prod tag was removed. James084 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
At Ellusionist.com you have to BUY this. You have to PAY money to know the secret. Its terrible that people can search this site for the secret, while others pay their hard earned money. CrazedNakedFooll 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 12:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Listed as non-notable person on CSD, but has article on chessbase and won national championships. Does need work though. Bringing it here, to see if I missed something. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)