The result of the debate was delete. DS 02:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable/hoax with zero google hits Cool3 01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim to notability. Contested speedy-bio. Wickethewok 01:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted from Wikipedia because it is both original research and a how-to guide. Ginkgo100 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikiquote. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mass listing of many similar articles. All of these articles are very similarly dumps of primary source quotes lumped by category with no context. I propose: transwiki to wikiquote (which has themed entries) and delete. Dmcdevit·t 01:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep. April Fool's joke. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Arab-Israeli Conflict lasted way to long already, and should be deleted at once! Heptor talk 02:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 202 unique hits for searchstring [bushwar "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 02:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 104 unique Googles for searchstring ["Call to Arms" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 02:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Battlefield 1942 mod. 126 unique google hits. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites, and several of these confuse themselves with the "Black Hawk Down" mod, and the combined project between the teams of both mods- "Conflict in Somalia: Black Hawk Down. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod, and the article itself states that the various incarnations of the mod were poorly received by the player community. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 02:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD G1 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs on Uncyclopedia. TheInvisMan 02:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete.--Adam (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 207 unique Googles for searchstring ["Desert Conflict" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 02:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep content; I am moving this page to Ruatapu; I do not see a consensus to merge, but this can be futher discussed on the talk page. - Liberatore(T) 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. Grutness...wha? 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about two game mods. One was for Battlefield 1942 mod (which according to the article was a total flop). The other (Half Life 2 mod) is still in development, therefore being vaporware and crystal balling. 261 unique googles when searching for ["Empires" "Battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]; most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites, and there are several "From the creators of the Battlefield mod, it's now coming to HL2"-esque confusions. Changing the games in the searchstring comes up with 241 unique hits. Article has minimal content. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No context, written like a 5-year-old--Zxcvbnm 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete.--Adam (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. This is a twenty-something former Democratic staffer. She looked up a credit report on a Senate candidate without authorization. She pled guilty to this misdemeanor, and did 150 hours of community service. Do we really need an encyclopedia article on her? I think not. This is already covered in Michael Steele (the candidate), and at best ought to be a redirect there. Derex 04:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, poorly written--Zxcvbnm 04:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN machinima production. Still not released. It will be shown at SIGGRAPH 2006, apparently, which is in late July. How can this be notable yet? Is there a sale on crystal balls? Previously survived nomination about six months ago with a result of No Consensus. A google search for "Kai" and "Death of Dreams", filtering out hits from the official site, and Wikipedia and its primary mirrors gets only 383 hits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard deCosta (2nd nomination). Drat (Talk) 04:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as reposting of deleted content. Stifle 23:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN person. Nothing of note released yet. Previously deleted for similar reasons. Google search for "Richard deCosta", filtering out hits from Wikipedia and its primary mirrors, and from his official site yields only 651 hits, yet only 52, 10 and 271 when paired with his respective unreleased projects. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai, Death of Dreams (2nd nomination). Drat (Talk) 04:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles for deletion/Articles for deletion/Arab-Israeli conflict
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly interesting website. Sadly, it seems to fail WP:WEB with an Alexa ranking of 848,428 (as of right now.) Delete. Grandmasterka 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 13:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
I have refactored part of this discussion to the talk page so that the long comments do not block up the day's AFD page. This is not an assertion that the discussion is of less importance than other comments, merely that they are a bit long. Please continue to place keep/delete recommendations here and use the talk page for longer comments. Stifle 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable movie. I tried prodding it, but apparently someone 67.183.90.139 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) objects to this (see the user's talk page). Therefore, I'm bringing this here. JoshuaZ 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.--Adam (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable institute, and it has already been described and listed in the entry "vanity press". It might be suitable for either deletion or merge into vanity press. Fspol 05:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD U1. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the user wants to delete this user page. Iyaaz 05:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page Certified Novell Instructor was speedily deleted by User:Deltabeignet with the deletion summary (CSD A7 (non-notable group)). This AFD is closed. —Encephalon 10:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May not be all that useful; seems to be a dictionary def. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn - only 4 google hits [5] -- Arnzy (Talk) 05:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN independent film. "The film opened theaters in Dallas on July 22nd, 2005 to a generally receptive crowd and moderate acclaim." The flier on the myspace page of the "actor/director/composer/editor" shows that those "theaters" are actually a single small Dallas art gallery. Despite an IMDB entry, the film gets only 40 Ghits and not one review on Rotten Tomatoes. - Rynne 05:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the flyer shown is just from the premiere showing. But deletion is understandable in this case.
-Brandon
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason why the page should be deleted Orion Minor 05:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Delete Nomination There's nothing here of any kind of substance. The info that is in here is either on another page or completely false.
For all intensive purposes, you ppl are neglecting the work i put into it. it took me days, literally, to get all the stuff together. you do realize that there is truth behind it and its not fan-whatever you want to call it. you can easily fix the stuff you find inconsistent without deleting it. that's why discussion pages are made in the first place. but to say that something's fanmade is just plain negligent ignorance from all your part. - Zarbon
yes, what you are saying is recognizable. But what can i do to prevent the deletion of something i spent so long to construct? - Zarbon
Whatever the case may be...the discussion is about my page. Please...for all those against me, please rethink it. I spent a very long time compiling all that which is needed to build this page. It is my essence, but it is also mostly factual. - Zarbon
wikitree? I didn't even know that existed. - Zarbon
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
original research, pov M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nonsense, was speedy, but this is recurring vandalism M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus either for delete or merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it was in the local newspaper (local being the tri-state region), it won't be remembered in a year, let alone 10 years. Rory096 05:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actor/composer who made a NN indie film (AfD nomination) and fronts a NN band (AfD nomination). This AfD completes the series. Aside from his own film and a bit part in Love Monkey (as Musician #1), all bluelinks in his filmography are due to misdirects. - Rynne 05:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...no waiting tables here...actual working actor, not waiter...I fixed a lot of links and validated some things...but I understand that the public interest may not be broad enough so delete it if you must.
-Brandon
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN website, fails WP:WEB. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A song not released as a single, only claim to notability is that it is used in a Macromedia flash clip. Song not mentioned in our Kaizers Orchestra article. Article reads like an ad for the flash clip. Eivindt@c 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another person trying to promote their nn blog. Daniel Case 06:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response: It is not a blog, it is a website about new rants that arrive almost every week. Think of it as a Maddox-like website. I repeat, this is NOT a blog. Chubz123 06:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daily or not, Josh, I run a busy schedule and therefore cannot continuously produce these articles. Doing a daily rant would also drain way topics and would turn it into more of a "same ol' same ol'" type deal than a site containing quality, humorous rants. Chubz123 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, it was my fault to have created this page in the first place. I didn't know that it was against the policy to create an article relating to a website that you wanted to include. I personally don't see what the problem is, since any other similar articles could be placed alongside it on a referral page or something of that type, but there's nothing else I really have to say. All apologies. Chubz123 06:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Already deleted, closing as per Mithent's request. (aeropagitica) 13:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encycolpediac Soumyasch 06:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad jokes? Deleted nonsense? This has no place on a serious project like Wikipedia. I will explain why in this six part seminar:
Thank you for your time. Golbez 07:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Consensus is muddy as to whether this is a redirect or a delete, but as there was a clear consensus to delete its parent article, deleting its daughter is the right thing to do. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As it is an unreleased magazine, which may or may not become notable, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball per WP:NOT. -- Blue520 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity entry: drummer in a house band, otherwise non-notable. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New to Wikipedia and have edited the current entry. I disagree with deletion submission. Source is also verifiable. If necessary contact Dwayne Wiggins, Comedy Central, Eric Benet. Respectfully submitted. Keep --User:Krystal Cooper 1 April 2006
There are two key things about Wikipedia to know. First, you get written about; you don't write about yourself. See WP:VAIN. Second, everything has to be checkable against some outside source; TV, magazine, well-known web site, or something like that. (Blogs don't count. Neither does your own web site.) It's all about your rep.
If you've been covered in magazines, add those mentions to your article. (They're supposed to be in a strict format, but if you just get the important info in there, someone else will probably fix that.) When you've been on TV or radio, list shows, dates, and songs. Or get your fans to do it. Most bands are put up on Wikipedia by their fans, not the band. That's what fan clubs are for.
What's killing your entry is that there's not much in Google about you. That's how everybody makes a quick check.
I'm not a music expert; I'm just doing cleanup tonight as a volunteer. I have no strong opinion either way. --John Nagle 09:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, (waving) Thanks John. That helps a lot. Actually this is a fan. How do I link to outside sources, TV, Magazines,etc. I don't understand the tags. What is format for including magazine articles. I wonder if another problem is that he goes by Taz. His real name is Dante' M. Roberson. But thanks again for clearing it up. We will try to fix the entry approriately to be accepted into wikipedia.
The listing is Dante_Roberson, but the article deletion tag is Roberson. Should I be posting on 2 different talks?--User:Krystal Cooper 1 April 2006
Hi everyone, again thank you for looking at the article. I'm Trying to clean up and put in correct format. Is there a different type of tag I need? --User:Krystal Cooper 2 April 2006
--WP:Band Criteria
Went over the WP:Band article. I'm still trying to figure out how to link based on the WP Music/Band criteria
Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country[1]. Dwayne Wiggins, Eyes Never Lie and selected Discography.
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources. Dwayne Wiggins,98 Degrees, Eric Benet, Najee
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). -See Discography
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) D.L.Hughley, Comedy Central is a Network Channel.
Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.discography
Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.discography
--User:Krystal Cooper 3 April 2006
--Sources Cited
Source Cited in Television: Comedy Central Network: Weekends at the D.L. :1st Season, 2nd season in production. Source Cited in Video: Eric Benet' World Tour: Source Cited in Links: Link to video from tour, Photography from tour and Television show. Source Cited in Discography & Artists Toured with.
--User:Krystal Cooper 4 April 2006
Please only make a bold-typed vote once. Not three times. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the process of learning WIKI in order to get it Wikified as some of the articles here suggest. --User:Krystal Cooper 5 April 2006
Ok starting to get a hang of it. --user:Krystal Cooper 7 April 2006
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be pissed at this article, either a hoax or made-up. 10,800 hits on Google, many part of a fan site for the building or mirrors of Wikipedia. I'm going to vote delete. SushiGeek 08:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NOT FUNNY. -Doc ask? 11:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THIS MERE EXISTANCE OF THIS PAGE HAS RESULTED IN MOAR EDIT WARS THAN AUTOFELLATIO AND TIMECUBE COMBINED! IT MUST BE STOPPED! -- CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL (FOR COOL) 09:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep - Liberatore(T) 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be transwikied to Wiktionary Nippoo 10:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self invented term BoH 10:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finally requesting that this article be deleted. It does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. The proposed deletion tags ((prod)) and ((prod2)) were removed, so this is the next step. - CorbinSimpson 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is simply a directory of venues with a large gallery of unnecessary photos. - Tangotango 12:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect to Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward - Liberatore(T) 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN building from a tv show. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. --Terence Ong 12:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable stub--Zxcvbnm 13:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[[17]] [[18]] Roodog2k 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as ((nn-bio)) Stifle 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per db-bio speedy deletion, just to make the deletion definate since the tag isn't surviving a minute on the page. If this doesn't get deleted, i'm uploading biographies of all my past school teachers. └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 13:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson at 15:39. (aeropagitica) 15:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely idiosyncratic non-topic, offensive language, not suitable for wiki Harvey1001 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A page empty of meaningful content. It's about what is, and what makes, a "beautiful picture". So why not have articles on Beautiful trees, or Ugly tires. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
few hits, non-notable •Jim62sch• 15:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable networking website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity piece, started by Dj Washington himself, non-notable •Jim62sch• 15:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, 9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and probably others. This should be a category (if that), not a list article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete. Topic seems too diffuse to me. List seems to run the gamut from hardcore opponents to people who have questioned small areas of the 9/11 report. Salvageable material should be merged back to 9/11 Truth Movement. -- JJay 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:Comment: Well, that was sort of my point. If we can't draw the line maybe we shouldn't have the list. As much as I try continually to seek a justification for having articles on various topics, this seems like something that needs a lot more editorial explanation to have any real value. Otherwise, to me, it looks like a blatant attempt to create a long list of personalities/activists/nutjobs who may have questioned, at one time or another, aspects of 9/11, or signed a petition, or supported someone who did. Anyway, the future participants here will decide. I don't have a particularly strong feeling and could move to neutral depending on the arguments. -- JJay 17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, stop deleting the polls! --Striver 14:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep This page seems like a simple listing of people's names. Looking through the policy on deletion, the only thing that comes close is 'soapboxing' but this page is not soapboxing. It boild down to a simple statement of (allegedly) fact - that these people here support this thing here. Furthermore I would say that this statement is also factually accurate - I'm sure that most of the people listed here would be happy to be listed on this page(in fact I can't see any that are out of place). The intense emotions relating to this particular subject is all the more reason to tread carefully before taking the extreme step of actual deletion. Utunga 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the attacks, a number of people proposed alternate theories about these events, such as suggesting: that the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were intentionally demolished for some reason; or that some group within the U.S. government either had foreknowlege of or were actually complicit in the events of September 11, 2001. Some have speculated that because of the absence of photographic evidence, that something other than a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon, and some suggest that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. Most people expressing an opinion on the matter place no credence in these alternate explanations.
>>"If a researcher isn't an engineer, their view does not carry authority." Like I said before, in the crash of American Airlines Flight 191 the person who figured out what actually caused the crash was not an engineer, he was a metallurgist, working in a research setting. The NTSB started off saying it was a single bolt failure and was going to leave it at that, was busy replacing all the bolts on other DC10s, and had it's engineers backing that story up. That story was wrong. It wasn't just the bolt, it was a mistaken procedure for engine maintenance that stressed the bolt beyond capacity. But it took a metallurgist examining the fractures on the pylon on a microscopic level, and then through a process of deduction, concluding that it could not possibly have been the bolts alone, to determine that.
relevant to the topic of the page. Therefore the notability of individuals is not pertinent to the AfD. It is only germane to the content of the article.Aminorex 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef/neologism. Prod tag removed by an anon without explanation. Delete. DMG413 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote I'm putting this article up for discussion. As far as I can tell, this is original research and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. However this is not my field and it requires wider review, hence the AfD Gwernol 16:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete, discounting the sockpuppet votes.--Adam (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
This article is highly biased and unencyclopedic. A small group of users is replacing any occurrence of m/z with m/q, e.g. in Mass-to-charge ratio and Mass spectrometry. Google ("m/q mass spectra" vs "m/z mass spectra") and the scientific literature clearly shows that m/z is the most common term. The probably more correct but minority term m/q is already adequately mentioned in the cited articles. This page should be deleted, the arguments should be added to the respectve articles Cacycle 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. Describes a series of games played by "a total of 38 different players." No Google results except for the willsoutback site itself. FreplySpang (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a wiki that does allow discussion of "future history", visit Wikicities Future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xezzite (talk • contribs)
sorry my names not andy stop accusing me of things
you know i can sit here and cry "WP:NOT!!" over and over but again i ask you- quote the specific part that applies to me- i have asked for hours an no one has delivered. I read the terms gentlemen, I see nothing.
i am sorry if this sounds sour but it seems that many of the mods against this article are simply abusing their authority. They think they can say things like "WP:V WP:NOT" and that i will cower down to that. But the thing is, i have read them, please scroll up and read what i have said before you make claims against me. Where in wp not does it say nothing that isn't mainstream? It clearly says nothing not notable about the future which could not even take place- mine is about past, present future, it says no irrelevant history such as - Jon Bon jovi spells his name John now.I am promoting my site? where in this does it say go to my site? should i not link the website that goes with the event? Should I not say who created it? I think knowing why it is called Wills Outback is somewhat important, but if you want the link and my name gone i can take it away. I don't need wikipedia to promote my game, I have done fine without it. I just want wikipedia to be useful. If everything on wiki is google-able then why have wiki? So that people can troll like the information is just a forum? Seriously, take the time and try to find the specific reason why this article should be deleted. I am not andy and i do not like being accused of that, i am trying to argue reasonable, which is more than everyone here can say. Why is that? You do not take the time to read what I have to say. I have heard you loud and clear- WP NOT. I have looked through all the violations and policies and I see nothing against a small, local event/union of people. How can this be a flaw when there are articles out there COMPLETELY wrong? And if your answer is "well who looks at the vampire counts article anyways?" my answer is, well me, and if its obsolute then why doesn't it get petitioned to be deleted? Just because I am from no large corporation or business why am I being bullied by wikistuds? Think about what you are doing, and if I see someone say WP NOT one more time im going to scream, QUOTE IT WITHIN THE WP NOT POLICY thank you, i have quoted what i have found I wish people would stop posting to post and actually look into what they are doing. Thank you
Another question, do moderators know what they are talking about or do they just know letters? Has anyone read WP:NOT? seriously, I am for the success of wikipedia as much as you are, I think wiki is a great idea that's why i'm fighting so hard to use it. But wiki isn't going to work if people don't take time to read the rules and when someone asks for the specifics you give them more general letters that mean squat unless you read them. I don't know why I am being accused of things or why I am being bullied around, I guess this is how you treat new users? I am asking for a clear definition of the policy that says Outback shouldn't be there. I've heard 'promotion' and according to the deletion petition it says we are supposed to work on getting the article into WP form, well, what can i change to make it not promotion? I mean for it to be informative, do you want my URL or name off? I will glady do that if it means keeping the article. Please stop accusing me of things and basically binding me to intentions that are not mine. Again, I recruit through talking in person, on the phone, via networking through friends. I don't need Wiki for that, please realize this. Yes, I have only had 38 people, but I have only had 4 games so far, it isn't like I'm using wiki to exploit it. I have my own website if I need to show people a link. It's just really frusterating because no one seems to listen to me- tell me specifically what in WP:not am i violating and if everyone agrees that I'm promoting then what can I do to fix it? It just seems like you guys don't care, you just want to say deleted because you do not understand the magnitude that is Outback. Maybe if I just wait someone who is not lazy will put the effort into getting the answers I long for. And if you think I'm asking too much, then why have wiki? Why have a website only a select few can add to? You guys are really missing the point.
Dear Kinu,
Seriously, if you are a moderator of Wikipedia you are a horrible spokesman. You did nothing to contribute to this discussion but label me with things I am not. Made up in a school day? How about you fuck yourself, if this is what wikipedia is fuck you. Do you feel tough that you can type in a few letters? A school day, wow, I would love LOVE to see you try to make something half as good. I don't care, label me for cussing and 'hatred', fuckin ban me, if moderators are pieces of shit like this I don't care. If you want to verify wills outback i have a lot of sources you can talk to, not just chump moderators who do it for no pay, but people who are somebodies. But I mean, if that's how you want to be it's cool, I made this up at school one day and it's basically like a flag football game. No it didn't take hours and hours and hours to plan, more hours to set up and a shit ton of thinking and work on my part. I am just a young chump. Abuse your power kinu! I thought I could use this for what wikipedia said it was- to discuss what was wrong, not to say NO. But no one cares, no one wants to work things out. I guess that's why you are moderators, too lazy for a job that requires work and dedication so you click buttons and eat butterfingers all day. Well, I probably will be banned from wiki soon for this post, but I know I am going out with my head high and in the right. Bully me more, bully all the people who had dreams of creating something more than just a chump school game. This isn't senior pranks, a game of assassins, this is a game that requires more intelligence that any moderator could possess. I asked for reasons, you gave me letters....thanks. The letters were good at first but then I replied saying I wanted specifics and I just got more letters. Well it sucks guys, I really liked wikipedia, I will be using wiki a little for my next outback, but mostly the warcraft wiki (I don't even know if they are linked with this one ?). But I won't be helping anymore, I know you don't care, but it's sad. Wiki should be about getting information on ANY little thing you want. I hope people don't trust too much in here, when I saw the mistakes on that article earlier today I actually laughed out loud for how wrong they were. Liches btw, are not the same as necromancers, they are actually in different armies and they actually hate each other. I tried to put some insight, information, and book power into an article incase someday some kid wants to read up on his favorite warhammer army. So Wiki, I leave you with this, and I hope you listen... You want me to verify it is all real Kinu? That it isn't a game we just made up at school? You want verification that it's not just a few guys and that it is known in, well, other countries? Well my question for you is...what do you verify? You google things to verify facts? I could make a website called napoleon101edu.org and say that napoleon was a homosexual who lost in waterloo against the duke of wellington because he was too busy giving oral to thomas jefferson. Is that verification? Would you even go as far to google it? Or just take a bite of your candy bar and say "never heard of it" DELETED? If this is what wikipedia is, well, I hope someday they get enough money to hire experts, I really do. I think this site could be EXCELLENT, but because of lazy bums who assume, label and stereotype me as a young hooligan trying to show off his website, this site will never be more than a forum. I'm sorry for any moderator who did care or tried, but seriously, it's a fucking website, I hope you feel good with the little power you have, I hope when you die you feel good that you could bully a young wikinoob around and not give him a specific reason why he is gone. So consider me a e-freedom fighter fighting for the rights of people to not have assraming dickless lazy pieces of shit moderators tell them what they should and shouldnt have access to. Oh and by the way, keep being experts on Napoleon Dynamite, it's not like everyone has already seen that movie. Keep promoting the movies you find so funny. Sorry for any true wikipedia mod who actually cares. I guess you can't really expect anyone to, it's too easy to say WP:NOT.
Hey this is Xezzite. Thank you Saberwyn, that is exactly what I have been asking for. Hopefully someday soon I will have what it takes to get on Wiki and get my little article going. I was under the impression that it would fly but obviously taking the time out and giving me the reasons I have been looking for. Any suggestions for what I can get for a third party? Someone hinted at newspaper articles or something of that nature, any ideas would be very much appreciated. I understand it may look like I'm just promoting my site so I guess I'll just have to go get some proof like you said. =D
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neolagism Computerjoe's talk 16:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, ((nn-band)). Stifle 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND WP:VAIN WP:V Self-posted promo article for unknown band. Non-notable, not verified. Article creator has twice deleted deletion tags from article.John Nagle 17:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Moving here as a courtesy to the reprodder. It's a "web discovery engine" which "is in development for a full beta release". NickelShoe (Talk) 17:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pure POV that, if anywhere, belongs in a software jargon dictionary. Any content deemed useful from this page belongs in Visual Basic .NET#Controversy. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. With 4 out of 6 in favour of deletion there is an element of discretion here, but the fact that the nominator seems unsure about whether this should even be deleted makes me err on the side of keeping. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Hip hop singer" is a misnomer (this is a group of singers from other genres -- mostly R&B and reggae -- who frequently appear on hip-hop songs - which actually would include 70% of all R&B artists, making the selection of artists inherently POV) - and artists who happen to record hip hop music and other genres as well. The article will only confuse readers, and provides little factual encyclopedic value. I would suggest renaming it as "List of singers who frequently appear on hip hop songs", and it could replace the large and unwiedly Hip hop collaborations, which I have proposed for deletion using the "prod" tag. FuriousFreddy 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was that the article is about a school, so, surprise surprise, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no context, possibly advertisement--Zxcvbnm 18:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.--Adam (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, non-notable--Zxcvbnm 18:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main page
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Is Jonny Fairplay a reliable source? I don't think so. Brian G. Crawford 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. As there is no evidence of notability that wasn't in the version that was redirected to Micronation, I am taking the old 2004 VfD into account, which showed a clear consensus to delete, and tips this discussion over the borderline into reinforcing the consensus for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following a VfD debate in 2004, preserved on Talk:Republic of Talossa, this was redirected to Micronation. Some weeks ago User:Libertariandeist began a new article on the same topic, but the old reasons why it is insufficiently notable for a separate article still hold for the new attempt IMO. I prodded the article citing WP:NFT, which was contested without comment by an anon. Later User:Stanley011 added a new prod with the reason
It being against WP:PROD procedure to re-prod an article I am taking it to AfD for consensus instead. Henning Makholm 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert, quack, nn, unverified and specious. Midgley 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing concert tour. The article currently is pretty much just a listing of the acts. Does not seem particularly notable, and this info seems to more belong on the individual artists' pages than on its own separate page. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete DMG413 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a website with a fairly high Alexa ranking, and doesn't have much else to recommend it. I listed it on prod, but User:Dark Tichondrias questioned the deletion on my talk page. NatusRoma | Talk 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. I'm inclined to redirect to unbirth as the real information is already there, and the rest - the stuff about being forced into one's partners testicles - looks like complete bollocks (no pun intended). However, there's no consensus for that either, so I'll let the furry fandom deal with it. Yeuch. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, univerified dictionary definition plus original research. See VfD for Unbirth above. Brian G. Crawford 21:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ripped off from Oasis' discgraphy and Tupac's discograpghy is already on his page Jizz 21:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect to shred guitar. Flowerparty■ 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-informative, wikipedia is not dictionary, article name is barely a commonly referred term. Everything that covers this topic is already at Shred guitar. GreyCat 21:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, ((nn-bio)). Stifle 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A not-particularly-notable individual. He sings in the band Lapwing, which is also up for deletion, and is an "aspiring wrestler." Joyous | Talk 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as ((nn-band)). Stifle 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. The article even states that the band never gained recognition. Brought here because the PROD tag was removed, although no further evidence of notability was added. Joyous | Talk 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect - Liberatore(T) 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was put up for prod as "Unreferenced pseudo-scientific nonsense", but the tag was removed without comment by the original author, so up for a vote it goes.
Friedrich Nietsche (Eternal recurrence)
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Adams.htm
Henri Poincare: Poincare recurrence theorem
http://www.math.umd.edu/~lvrmr/History/Recurrence.html
Paul Steinhardt, Ph.D Princeton University
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/steinhardt02/steinhardt02_index.html
Plato and Aristotle views on time and eternity
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8094(196401)14%3A54%3C35%3ATNAEIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
Time in ancient historiography
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2656(1966)6%3C1%3ATIAH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9
Please read this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
and: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html
Above links were added by: Riveros11 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 April 2006
More references:
http://www.olduniverse.com/home_page.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Cosmology.htm
Note:Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe.
Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded? (Albert Einstein, 1954) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.13.124 (talk • contribs)
Vladimir Dimitrov, Ph.D in Engineering about Poincare recurrence and time.
http://www.zulenet.com/VladimirDimitrov/pages/time.html
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Cosmology.htm
http://www.olduniverse.com/home_page.htm
Note:Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe.
Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded? (Albert Einstein, 1954)
The arrow of time problem: http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/VelRev/VelRev.html
Eternal recurrence:http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/philosophy/COURSES/NIETNET/RECUR.HTM
Boltzmann's theory recap: http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-02/msg0014535.html
Finally: eternal recurrence simplified: http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/archive/index.php?t-1879.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.13.124 (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 361 unique hits for searchstring ["Eve of Destruction" "Battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod, and a very brief hitory of the project that would be of more use on their website. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is uninformative, and the information is also contained here. discospinster 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another weather report related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 march snowfall, same creator, same place, except this snowfall came even earlier in the year. Snowfall in the winter, what a surprise. Eivindt@c 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus.--Adam (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 167 unique hits for searchstring [Finnwars "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons, vehicles, and maps in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 22:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep.--Adam (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 320 unique hits for searchstring ["Forgotten Hope" "Battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contents are little more than a overly-exhaustive list of the maps, weapons, and vehicles used in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's attempting to be a semi-exhastive reference to the jokes of Arrested Development, which the OP already does and does better. This article spoils the jokes and makes them unfunny at the same time. The article is messy and doesn't seem like it could be made encyclopedic. I love Arrested Development, but this article doesn't do it any justice. — Miles←☎ 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unmaintainable...in fact, so much so that this article (if it is supposed to be accurate and complete) would have to list literally tens of thousands of songs. Delete as excess, and possibly replace with article on list of singers who frequently collaborate with hip hop artists (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hip hop singers. FuriousFreddy 22:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all. Flowerparty■ 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Family tree" based on work connection of a series of mostly minor characters from the DragonBall franchise. Per WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". -- Saberwyn 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a page for RPG Maker games. M2K 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the standards for notability in Wikipedia, in contrast to other articles that have been wiped from Wikipedia.. Article was created by a member of the machinima's crew. Tykell 23:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, nothing but a dictionary definition of a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke article and no sources are cited. NN --SoroSuub1 23:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, misguided nomination. Stifle 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page to redirect to the main University of Hertfordshire page with a capital H and now found that when searching in the Search pages i could only go to the main page, not find other pages with University of Hertfordshire in. I Therefore see this as a HUGE mistake. The article is not the main University of Hertfordshire with a Capital H but University of hertfordshire with a small h Simply south 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Simply south[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus. Adam (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This non notable rubbish is part of the silliness that damages Wikipedia's reputation. Rense 06:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]