< December 1 | December 3 > |
---|
The result was The result was Withdrawn by nominator, who indicated (by page-blanking and leaving an edit summary), that Prod will be used instead. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would nominate even if it was sourced. Unencyclopedic list. ∴ here…♠ 00:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible, wrong information. No any info in Internet: Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com.--Paukrus 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company. Plenty of google hits, but most of them belong to the company's website. No google news results [3] at all. Delete this page as company is still a start up and having no mention at all in the media Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating these articles for deletion because they are related directly to Saif energy ltd, and are non notable and having very few google results.
Delete as per nom. Article is mostly written in future tense ("is eagerly looking forward", "The company will operate ", etc) so a large element of notability via crystal ball. Also, User:Jawadrox has no edits apart from these 3 articles. Emeraude 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys gotta remember that not everything is on the internet (yet). I think we should keep this article in. Sharkface217 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 08:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP Otto4711 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - worthless tidbit; 1 line page?? Yankeedoodledandy 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entry reads more like a press release (clear WP:NPOV) than an actual article. Additionally, as it stands the ICUS appears to be a non-notable organization which generates about 600 Google hits. Nedlum 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, but speedy tag was removed twice, so I'm bringing it to AfD. —Swpb talk contribs 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very hoaxy to me. No ghits of note for "Jakob P. Steinbach", "Jakob Steinbach Bible" or "Jakob Steinbach Russia". Additionally, the claim about the town name is unsubstantiated, as it says in Steinbach, Manitoba, it simply means "stony brook" Lankiveil 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Mindmatrix 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In view my article "Deprolarization radiation force theory" does not meet the wikipedia.org's policy, I ask my article to be deleted promptly. The author jxzj. 2006-12-04.
This article's claims (esp. claims, since deleted, in Gravitation) are so outlandish that I thought it necessary to follow them up. The creator's name, User:Jxzj, matches the initials of the first author of the cited papers, so it's likely she's the same person. That's why I called it a vanity edit. The cited papers do exist on cite-base[6], but their only citations seem to be among themselves. The authors have also published several books, through Nova Science Publishers. The books are listed by numerous booksellers and a few (gullible) university libraries, but have not otherwise been cited or reviewed, as far as I can find.
The authors maintain a fantasy website at [7] Eleuther 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN, other than being David Bowie's kid. Directing one advertising campaign, even for a well-known company is not enough. Ckessler 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Marc Bolan. Agent 86 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN musician, even states in the article itself that he is better known for being the son of Marc Bolan. Google search shows no sign that he has released anything notable. Ckessler 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Borderline spam for Non notable chef, non notable photographer found on orphaned pages patrol. Suspected conflict of interest by single purpose account. Of the 13 unique Ghits (for chef), two wiki. two directory listings, a few dead-end links, and only one relevant but which fails WP:RS. 38 unique Ghits (for photographer) include a few commercial sites with little or no info on the artist, many deadend spam links for poster sites, and his myspace site, which has strangely been blanked. (cached version here) Ohconfucius 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per withdrawn nomination and no delete !votes. -Amarkov blahedits 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has significantly improved since I nominated it for deletion, and I would like to withdraw my nomination. Greyfedora 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) This article is not NPOV, is unsourced and bears no resemblance to the term "news embargo" as it is actually used. For example, the assertion that there is a "news embargo" for the Iraq war is based on an article by an interest group from before the Iraq war that uses the word "embargo" as a pun on the economic sanctions then in place against Iraq. I am also not sure there would be much more to write about "news embargoes" beyond their definition. Greyfedora 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another marketer of expensive audio cables that fails WP:CORP and whose article reads like spam. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Cable Audio Cables for a similar example. Tubezone 02:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable podcast with 300 subscribers fails the WP:WEB notability guideline. Alphachimp 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. WP:WEB notability guideline.--Chalutz 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will userfy on request for those looking to put the articles listed here into a category (such a category is not specified by those arguing for categorisation). --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article could develop in one of two ways but in either case I do not believe it suitable for Wikipedia:
If a legal publication is notable, an article about it should be created. A list of those notable publications and their articles would then seem an appropriate way to present this information.
In of itself, this list will either end up being a directory or a very subjective list of which publications that it occurs to users to include as being important. Given the underdeveloped nature of legal coverage on Wiki this would be far from encyclopedic. WJBscribe 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Housing subdivision with just 30 properties, lacks notability SimonLyall 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep per withdrawn nomination, no other delete !votes. -Amarkov blahedits 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by User:Ancient Land of Bosoni (AKA User:Bosoni AKA User:Ancient Bosoni) as part of a wider soapboxing and POV pushing campaign. There are many war criminals from the former Yugoslavia, and this man hasn't done anything to make himself more notable than hundreds of others from all sides of the conflict. - Ivan K 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nominator. - Ivan K 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I nominated this article, there were weren't a lot of references in the article, so I thought it was just part of User:Ancient Land of Bosoni's soapboxing, but now I think it should not be deleted. Four other articles created by him were nominated and subsequently deleted ([11], [12], [13], [14]) so I just thought this article was just like those four. So anyway, how do I withraw this nomination; or can't that be done? - Ivan K08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion contested by author. Was just a collection of external links. Those links have mostly been made into internal ones, but I'm concerned that this is redundant to existing categories and impossible to maintain (for example, I imagine many of the groups not wikilinked are non-notable). – Gurch 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Local pro wrestling league in Iowa. Does not appear to meet notability standards for organizations. Also, no reliable sources--sources are myspace pages and the like. Chick Bowen 04:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete based on WP:V, WP:NOR and does not establish notability separate from the movie. —Doug Bell talk 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary original research and pure speculation on an extremely minor plot detail from the movie Casino Royale (2006) Eqdoktor 07:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus Note that article has been considerably rewritten since nomination. W.marsh 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable podcast fails the WP:WEB notability guideline. Alphachimp 04:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several Google hits, and the article does allege notability, but there are no third party references. The article is also a WP:COI violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 144.1 foot long culdesac is not notable. We're going to list every street in the world? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 05:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect I am redirecting for now, anyone who wants to merge information can try. W.marsh 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While such footwear may exist, the contents of this article are pure original research. A couple of pornographic stories (NSFW) are not reliable sources. Maybe a brief mention in some fetishism-related article is in order if sources can be found. Sandstein 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Danielle Foote, delete Underneath the Radar (Danielle Foote's Single). JDtalk 20:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable reality TV contestant. Unreferenced. The only claims to notability were to release a single (also nominated) which barely made it on the charts at Australia (peaked at #41) and appearing on the cover of a relatively new men's magazine. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. MER-C 06:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nom - Notability "asserted" but sources used are self-published; notability not demonstrated via awards, shows, etc., nor are general claims verified through sources other than those that were self-published. Rklawton 06:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete outright. W.marsh 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Fire department cruft. Do we want an article on every fire dcepartment in the world? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedied under WP:CSD#A7 (not notable biography) and WP:CSD#G12 WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) on 16 November. The article was re-created on 27 November.
I know that according the rules, re-creations can be speedied immediately. However, it's not clear to me that it should have been speedied in the first place; looking at the remarks on Talk:QED International, it was mentioned in NY Times, for instance. So I decided to bring it here for wider discussion (perhaps I should have brought it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead?).
No vote from me, since I'm not familiar with the film industry. Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC), amended 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but please improve referencing in the article. W.marsh 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable group. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. The article, which is over a year and a half old, asserts a numerological relationship between the day of the month on which a person is born and the occupations for which the person is most suited. No sources are provided, making the article unverifiable. (Note that I do not expect the article's supporters to find verification in reliable sources that the numerological relationship is true, but they should at least be expected to provide verification that this is a well-known belief, as opposed to being either original research or the views of a single author not accepted in the larger occult community.) I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable company. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable company. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. El_C 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being the wife of someone famous is not enough criteria for her own page. Ocatecir 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but will move. A merge/redirect could still happen but doesn't need AfD. W.marsh 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She lost...in 2004. Notable? Not so. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Existance of reliable sources or of otherwise meeting WP:MUSIC was never established. W.marsh 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This poorly written and completely unsourced article about a band whose notability is marginal (at best) fails to meet any of the 12 criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This neologism, referring to sentient dog-like creatures, has only 249 Google hits, most of which are wiki mirrors or forums, and does not appear to be in widespread use. It's unverifiable, non-notable, and probably original research. Nydas 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable open source software Memmke 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. I have no doubt that I'm asking for an ass-kicking here, but this entire article reeks of self-promotional material if it actually exists, or a hoax if it doesn't (which... makes a lot of sense). There's absolutely no reason to let this farce of an AfD continue; a handful of people (possibly even one) are the ones campaigning for its continued existence, and the strongest piece of evidence (the scanned newspaper article) is one of the most heavily photoshopped images I've ever seen. Between suspect sockpuppets, a dubious level of notability, and an unreliable primary source, I don't feel that this article should be on Wikipedia. If this is a real religion (seems to be a bit of a debate about that, but that's neither here nor there), an article can be written at a later date at such a time as the movement is actually notable. That time is not now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 4 December 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)) . |
Looks like pure original research and possibly something made up in a library. Also NN, "Janicism religion" garners 11 ghits. Speedied as nonsense, recreated, contested Tubezone 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Janicism is a factual article. All things start off small, and Janicism wont expand suddenly overnight. The fact is, Janicism is a real religion. There are people who follow it, and therefore I maintain they have a right to have it documented on Wikipedia, which is why I wrote the article (which has since been expanded by a fellow practicing Janicist, showing it is not false.) I strongly believe that this article should be upheld in the public view.Mlc409 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Janicism is a real religion, but these things cannot simply turn up overnight. We have slowly been expanding our religion over many months, and have decided to write an article to try to reach out to more people. Janicism is definitely not made up, as some of its views are documented in books - see "Mort" by Terry Pratchett, as seen in the article. Do not delete. Ichbinbored 10:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Ichbinbored (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
i think this is real, i've heard about it before. 80.47.56.21 10:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.56.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
— 82.43.105.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: 82.43.105.204 is Mlc409 (talk · contribs), per [25]
Janicism is slowly gaining popularity, and its beliefs can be seen in everyday life - just look around you. Now is it undocumented? I think not. Ichbinbored 10:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE There is proof. There are verifiable sources. I have found this link here [26]. I am also in the process of scanning a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE documenting janicism. Please be patient. mlc409
That is just a blog entry about one of our festivals, its an example. So what if its not reliable, its a source. And someone set up a page ages ago here that was supposed to talk about the religion, but I think she gave it up a bit later. Ichbinbored 11:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask what you would consider to be proof? Every source we find you manage to establish a way of making it illegitimate. Even if it's not. Annoying. If we didn't feel so strongly about our beliefs then we would probably give up as we feel very much ganged up against. The fact is this: JANICISM EXISTS. Regardless of how many people follow it. We follow it. We believe in it. Therefore it should be documented on Wikipedia. This is how I see it.mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Afraid not, worshipping your cat is quite different from an article on a religion. I should clarify that the ichbinbored name is one used by the user generically. It really has no relevance to this discussion over the Janicism article. Discussing/attacking the character of the editor is not really acceptable. It is the suitability of the Janicism article for wikipedia in discussion here. mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This is off the subject a bit, but I find it quite offensive that you can insult my name like this. Try searching for "ichbinbored" on Google and you will see that I receive 9 out of the 10 results on the first page. Ichbinbored is simply a slogan, it is in no way supposed to be a literal translation. NOT DELETE. Ichbinbored 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete: this is actully really rather intersting to me, having read the artical, and read the discustion so far, I do not have any connections myself with Janicism, but you are asking for evidence of its existance, and you are expecting that a small manority religon (if it exists or not, I am not here to debate) will be able to come up with links from places like the bbc or something, but it isn't really going to happen is it? interstingly you have not found any infomation to prove that janicism does not exist, maybe you should try and do that, although I do understand that acording to wikipedia you don't have to, but it would be nice to see some evidence against it. also a while ago, i alerted an Admin about a poor quality artical and he E-mailed me back saying "as long as infomation is factul and is not biased, it is allowed on wikipedia" there can be no question that it is not biased, and as for whether or not it is factul, does remain to be seen, but wikipedia is meant to be a place to share infomation, and fit more infomation than you could on paper, so I say keep it, and spread the infomation about this religion, and its time for a lot of you to grow up, stop empowering yourselfs from your keyboard, and get off your high horses, and just accept it as infomation and move on. --GDMCR — GDMCR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
Janicism is definately a real religion. Many of my friends have recently joined the religion and have tried to persuade me to join aswell but i am a strong christian so i declined their offers. 82.26.33.76 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 82.26.33.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I can guarantee you that no photoshopped articles appear on the Janicism page. Mlc409 12:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When will you people learn to READ??? PHOTOSHOP WAS NOT USED TO CREATE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. I can't think of a more simple way to put it. mlc409
Don't be ridiculous Patstuart. All this means is that I wasn't signed in at the time. My computer signs me out sometimes automatically. It happens, and it doesn't mean I am attempting to deceive people. What I WILL say though, is that I don't have a second username. So lets leave of the detective work and just discuss the actual article shall we? That's what this page is for mlc409 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out - I already knew that, which is one of the reasons I haven't being engaging in such actions. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, SHALL WE CONCENTRATE ON DISCUSSING THE ARTICLE INSTEAD OF PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME?? Mlc409 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what is Google? Is it the be all and end all of the WORLD? I know it's offensive for Wikipedia to have original content but I guess it happens Mlc409 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched over 14 academic databases, and did not get a single hit. Keesiewonder 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a hoax. --Das0408 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. See for ex. Chaim Zimmerman's "The Prohibition of Abandoning Land in Eretz-Yisrael", Nativ, Vol. 7, March 2005. El_C 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stebbins 08:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now (a list of quotes) it shouldn't be in wikipedia, but wikisource etc. but also is there a problem with lack of context, these injunctions don't apply to the current era do they? (not rhetorical q) ⇒ bsnowball 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD. The term "fifi bag" seems to exist, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary of sexual slang. - Mike Rosoft 10:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page still doesn't really assert any notability. Its full of 'sources' but these are all blogs, newsletters, search engines or broken links. I believe that, unless some of the claims are substantiated, it fails WP:WEB.
Its previous listing can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafenio. Its a recent one with no non-keep votes and one which I closed. However, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com. At least two of the voters in the Kafenio discussion had both contributed to the ezine and were together on the same Greek island when 'voting'. Though there is no reason to suspect that they delibetatly tried to manipulate the system, their votes nonetheless gave a false impression of a consensus: take them away and there were just 3 votes, all keep but two from users for whom it was their first contribution... anyway, I think its worth a relisting. --Robdurbar 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been annoyed before by your soap-boxing antics in AfDs, but linking a user‘s talk page, that evidently has been blanked by mutual consent of both writer and receiver really takes the biscuit around here.
But let‘s not talk about rude manners and rather about your scientific way to establish notability. Let‘s take your favorite, ALEXA statistic‘s. If you had bothered checking the methodology, you would have discovered that these statistics are based on users who use the ALEXA Toolbar. And investigating the history of that bar makes it evident that it did not exist before 2003 in a notable fashion. Kafenio did not exist anymore at that time so there cannot be a useful ALEXA statistic. In fact, having a million downloads (which does not imply a million users) of the aforesaid toolbar still means that only a fraction of a percent of all Internet users surfing habits are recorded, whose statistical relevance is questionable at best. Besides that, on many sites there are instructions on how to write a simple Basic program to improve the ALEXA statistics on a site. That may be the explanation of why obscure publications, that never get quoted and never are noted by anyone, rank so high on ALEXA statistics.
The only way to establish notability in this case is solid library work and in doing that you might learn a thing or two about notability.
YamSan 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete, as no substantial case for notability - i.e. one showing at the very least non-trivial coverage by multiple third-party reliable sources - has been made to counter the nomination for deletion. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not assert its notability as per WP:WEB. There are no sources to back up its claims and suggest that it has had any impact outside of its own world.
The previous listing was recent and 'no consensus': see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor. However, following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, I feel that Youtrue/Rough's votes should be considered as unintentional meatpuppeteering. Adding that one of the other 'keep' voters has only two wikipedia contributions, and we have a case of a clear need for relisting. --Robdurbar 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Proto::► 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is at best borderline. The sentence of Wikipedia:Notability (people) which concerns authors reads: Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. The page certailny proves that she is published, but the only two reviews it refers to are for Lonely Planet books to which she was one contributor. Thus, for now, I think she fails the guidelines.
The other reason for relisting is due to some of the problems with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Beach Jacobson, the first nomination. As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, Rough/Youtrue's votes validity are debateable given that they have both contributed to the same ezines as Jacobson and were together when voting. Though there's no reason to claim that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert the system, it certainly calls into question the validity of a the debate as a whole. --Robdurbar 11:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected. MER-C 14:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally created the page without the correct captialisation IE Jon robyns instead of Jon Robyns. I have created the proper page now, but this one needs to be deleted Marcosscriven 12:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was ♪ Keep ♪. El_C 12:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:NCVG. Ruiewql 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy and neutrality disputes because definition is too broad, would include tens of thousands of entries, unverifiable because no objective criteria for inclusion, see articles talk page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul111 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article's assertion of the comic's notability is a nomination for an award, which previous consensus in the Webcomics project would say that it fails WP:WEB. Article was previously deleted in a nomination a year ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sordid City Blues). Contested prod. Brad Beattie (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been moved to Wikisource, and may be a copyright violation anyway. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the single most important thing Gary Gygax ever wrote about D&D. Furthermore, there is no copyright issue here. Generalklagg 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Google finds exactly zero nontrivial hits outside of www.lidstromer.com. Prod removed by article creator. —Cryptic 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have now tried to delete and change as much as possible ASAP, and I hope the changes are satisfactoruy - if I make more mistakes keep me informed, new member.NGL 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Just adding, for those who wonder, that there are a lot of nontrivial facts on the net, though mostly in Swedish. I could though find even in English a lot of info. Just now working on foot notes, that I haven't really learned yet how to do, need some help here.18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)NGL
Sincerely Dr Nike GeorgeNGL 10:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN drinking game without citations, references, links. No proof it exists. Also, it's more of a Wikibook, in its instructional listing format. -- Zanimum 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 07:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion on Notability grounds. Also, all of its text is duplicated on its parent page, Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, so it is completely superfluous. Iceberg3k 14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nom - Absurd claims point toward hoax (Popes and presidents as members?); Even if this isn't a hoax, it's not an especially notable organization. It is, in short, a local dining club. Rklawton 14:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New Hampshire. It does not rely on a single newspaper article, though there is only one local paper that is online. I happen to be far from Dedham and won't have access to the Historical Society or print-only newspapers until Christmas. --Briancua 05:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO, also does not seem to be a philosopher.--Buridan 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 29-down, 6 letters, "to suppress", starts with D, ends in TE. DS 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is not for lists of words, this is not encyclopedic. there are hundreds of websites with this info. Buridan 14:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:PROF Buridan 14:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:PROF two relatively uncited books on a literary figure does not justify the stub. Buridan 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep disambig; relisting the correct article Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) for clarity. Opabinia regalis 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Since this article was listed AfD several new articles relating to the article in question have been created by TruthbringerToronto (Talk. Additionally, TruthbringerToronto moved the article being considered for deletion to Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada). For clarification, Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) is the article that is being considered for deletion, NOT THE DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. It is suggested that voting is left open for 2 days extra since at least one voter thought that the article being considered for deletion was actually a disambiguation page.
Nomination: This article appers to be an advertisement for a Diploma mill. See my comment in the article's talk page for more info. This article either needsto be deleted or transformed, so that it makes the true nature of this "organisation" is made abundantly clear, especially considering that prospective "students" may use this article to research the subject. Also the article's contents are not verfiable and the organisation(s) is/are not notable. As such the article in question should be deleted. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (edited: 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comments:
The following votes relate to the wrong article
*Weak Keep, disambiguation pages don't hurt anyone. --Wizardman 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable restaurant Coil00 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible but consensus unclear. W.marsh 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Minor software utility created by Adobe. Fails to satisfy WP:SOFTWARE, as
-- Valrith 15:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This unmaintained essay is full of original research. Reads like a teacher complaining about his job. Delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX MartinDK 15:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Argument for deletion is much stronger. You need to consider notability is not inherent. Yanksox 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sign of notability -- i.e. it doesn't look like there are (any) non-trivial outside sources about this school that we can use to write a verifiable article. A Lexis-Nexis search shows no non-trivial coverage even at the local level. 143 unique ghits for "collier high school" wickatunk -wikipedia, so unlikely this school has any non-trivial outside coverage. Reply to de-prod comment "interesting and unusual for being run by a non-profit corporation rather than by the state or religious institution; mergable/redirectable to parent organization" -- it's not for us Wikipedians to judge what's notable by virtue of being "interesting" or "unusual" -- if publishers outside of the school agree that the school is unusual and therefore decide to publish things featuring the school, then we've got something to build a Wikipedia article on. Otherwise, not. Pan Dan 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcrufty; Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. There are only two entries. Crystallina 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. I will redirect, information already seems to be at target. W.marsh 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess. This article is a confused duplication of the information at Sonic X#Who is Nazo?, which is far clearer than this is. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 16:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Here's a more important precedent, no reliable sources means no article... notice how no one's able to expand this beyond a 1-sentence substub... wonder why? Provide sources and I will undelete. A redirect to somewhere relevent would be fine and harmless. W.marsh 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A station on a subway in Korea that doesn't appear to have had anything happen at it. Not notable. The list of the stations on the Seoul Subway Line 5 page is sufficient and they should be unlinked and those with articles there should be deleted as well. MECU≈talk 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a virtually unknown organisation, and the Wikipedia entry seems to be only publicity for it. For further details please see the talk page of the article. Slackbuie 17:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but please cite a source. W.marsh 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Only notable thing is that it shared the same name as a paper in the UK that made it. MECU≈talk 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but published, reliable references need to be cited in the article ASAP. W.marsh 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advert. -- RHaworth 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be penalized because I am a newbie & learning how to code the site & am very slow at the learning process to get info on this artist up here.
This is not a personal advert. I and other clients of Mr. Huszar's recognize his talent is known in Romania but is just now becoming known through out Europe & the USA. His work is important & he is 1 of a very very few humans who does this traditional Icon work. His stylized fashion is brilliant, he uses only those very expensive traditional media, like tempera and 23 Kt. gold leaf gold, platinum and palladium leaf Gilding. He has the works blessed, authenticated by several institutions in Romania.
George Cristian Huszar is a Romanian Living Cultural National Treasure. This is a great honour of few persons in history in any nation.
There are many pages for artists, both dead & contemporary; Famous & not so famous. George Cristian Huszar is a noteworthy artist & it would be silly to delete this.
I find this article contains the ONLY picture of the Reverse Painting on Glass process. It is also 1 of the few contemporary Icon pictures on Wikipedia. His work is important to the Romanian icons genre and has been recognized as such the the Romanian Orthodox Church.
Art & articles of interest are subjective. This article is educational, informative & I don't understand what would make someone go out of their way to want to delete this.
Mr. Huszar is traveling & I am awaiting info on his awards or associated notariety. I don't want to incorrectly add anything that isn't true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDeCourcy (talk • contribs) Author of the article under discussion.
If anyone knows how to make the title of the actual article page "George Cristian Huszar" & then have a redirect from "George Huszar" that would greatly be appreciated. Thank you.
Where or how do I add source info, is that a template, a code, another page that links to this one etc.. my sources were mentioned are the newspaper articles, the Church, the seals of recognition from the backs of his works, his honors etc.. but I don't know how else to list that than how I put then in the article.
Mr. Huszar is possibly having an article about his rare works done in the Washington Post. We do not yet have a publishing date. You never know what reporters will use. He is also in the USA doing some work for large corporations that want his works in thier offices.GDeCourcy 15:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect THe history is still there for whoever wants to do a merge. W.marsh 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article defines a term coined by Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin to describe an obscure philosophical concept, but the term itself doesn't appear in his article. Just 103 Google hits on "transgredience" [50]. Best alternative to deletion might be to merge with the Bakhtin article]. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. But I suggest better sources be cited in this article. W.marsh 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nom - Not notable. She's an "also ran" in the long-lived category. She never held the title "oldest" - unless its OK to narrow the field down to French possessions outside of France. If we can do that, then I lay claim to the oldest person living in my house. I.e.: "so what?" Rklawton 17:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying overt bias, but we often tend to favor our own nation, culture, language, etc. Checking here, we see 14 British supercentenarian articles, but only 12 French:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_supercentenarians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_supercentenarians
Yet statistics show that France has had more supercentenarians than the UK (currently 87 vs 66).
Also, "Overseas French possesions" includes the entire French overseas empire...French Guiana, Polynesia, Reunion, New Caledonia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, etc. When you scratch the surface, that's quite a bit more substantial than a high school in Miami or a fake TV show town.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYO, You can check this out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_supercentenarians
Gaudeloupe alone (the island this woman was from) has 452,000+ residents (far more than St. Kitts, for example). Consider that the current oldest person in Germany and the UK are both younger than Ms. Jandia was.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 21:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when's the last time Guam's oldest resident lived to 111? As for Puerto Rico, we do have TWO supercentenarians from Puerto Rico listed, but both of them lived to be "world's oldest person" or "world's oldest man," so this is not comparable.131.96.70.158
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak assertion of notability. Basically claims to have been present on an episode of a program on the Discovery Channel. Borderline WP:CSD#A7. ghits: [51] NMChico24 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded. `'mikkanarxi 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per subjects apparent wishes Talk:Alexander Zaitchik, tho how do we substantiate that, shld he email someone? (pls note i'm acctually 'left-wing' - & i mean that, i'm not frm the u s so i know that the term doesn't simply mean "not a rabid fascist/imperialist" - i simply support this persons right to privacy, it is after-all a, current, vandal- and, potential, libel magnet) ⇒ bsnowball 14:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Chris Chilvers, merge Smoke Radio to University of Westminster. Sandstein 07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
College internet radio station, and one of its presenters. No indication that the subjects meet WP:WEB or WP:BIO. Prod on Chris Chilvers removed without comment by apparent SPA. Fan-1967 18:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Adams-Wilson Hobbycopter. No real consensus on this one, I'm going to redirect with no objection to expansion if it meets WP:CORP or another AfD. Yanksox 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self promoting company advertisement. Makes no mention of notability, other than the fact that the 2 creators were from a larger company. It's main customers are small helicopters. May also be a COI, as the creator is pretty in to the subject matter & may be one of the company's founders. Non notable company article. Delete. Spawn Man 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article "combines a scholar’s love for God’s Word and his archaeological and geographical knowledge of the lands of the Bible"?? This guy seems to be a non-notable Christian archeologist, who's sole claim to fame is some spat with the seemingly slightly more notable Bob Cornuke. I suspect this article may only exist to justify POV pushing on the the Cornuke article, which consists of quote after quote as to why Franz says he's wrong. Delete this one, and then let's crop the other one to the baiscs. -Docg 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Doug Bell talk 09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed without comment or discussion by User:69.84.102.164. This actress fails WP:PORNBIO. Mikeblas 19:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as G3. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be a hoax. I cannot find any reference to the names or places mentioned; I've searched in nearly every academic database to which I have access. Google, google books, and google scholar similarly return zero results. I've never seen zero results returned on even the most obscure topics. The single reference provided in the article appears to be a children's book, but I cannot be sure given that no information is provided aside from the title. (Also note that there is no 2005 edition of this book.) Furthermore, an asteroid numbered 2351 was discovered in the 1960s according to List of asteroids (2001-3000). This is a contested prod. shotwell 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. Yanksox 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE Tulkolahten 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook example of WP:NOR. As a side note creator of the article removes any unreferenced or unnotability templates -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A totally unnotable crackpot -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a regional band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Also having trouble meeting WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Evidence of reliable third-party coverage would have been good here. If some exists I will undelete. W.marsh 23:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not look suitable to wikipedia, at least as its own article. I invite discussion. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE (A7 - band). TigerShark 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Sad mouse 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating deletion discussion page for Karpenter's Kids because it just seems to be advertising. The band is not notable, the entire entry was done by one person, and there are almost no google hits. Sad mouse 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got 14 unique Google hits for this term. The article reads like an essay by some supporter of this concept. Considering the main supporter and possibly inventor of this concept runs his own website 14 hits is very low. Delete per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OR MartinDK 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sacred Name Movement. Sandstein 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research or Unverifiable Dachannien 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bacl-presby 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's Original-Research personal essay of near-nonsense. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blog-related neologism. Page has no content except for a vague explanation of what this made-up word is supposed to mean in blogger's minds and an external link. Femmina 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
missing notability Mdda 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "war dance" in the Star Wars universe that appears once in a game, and once in a game-related book. Not wanting to use the f-word, I will just call it "non-notable". Delete unless we really, really need to merge it somewhere relevant. bikeable (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to superior frontal gyrus and possibly merge there, which all are invited to do. Sandstein 07:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is non-notable. After an exhausting 3 hour research session of this so called Patient AK I found nothing. In addition its only reference is apparently to a book or paper which introduced this subject in the first place. Amanduhh 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable BIO; gsearch gives only 8 non-similar hits Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was AFD relisted. The amount of trolling in this AfD is so high that determining a concensus is just totally impossible. This AfD will be restarted, and semiprotected as soon as created. Unfortunate that it came to this. --Deskana talk 04:01, 5 December 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)) . |
Fails WP:BIO hard. Vanity and self-promotion. Apparently this guy did nothing in his life except writing in blogs. Femmina 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally.--LABlogger 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
itself is viewed by some as a niche - or is disliked by a select few - does not constitute grounds for removal. --Sprhodes 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless list dump, probably copyvio of http://www.isro.org.uk/junction.asp?lid=4_8_3_2&ln=TR. Circeus 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete – Gurch 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can ascertain, Tom Field has no claim to notability. This appears to be a vanity page created by a user called Fieldy144. Euchiasmus 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without comment. Appears to be personal memorial to a woman who died of breast cancer. Only remote (very remote) claim to notability is having been test subject for unnamed (and apparently unsuccessful) cancer treatment. No sources, no verifiability, no notability. Fan-1967 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. All arguments to keep seem to revolve around ignoring the lack of reliable sources writing about this person... unfortunately that's not a good idea at all. W.marsh 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion as recreated material was overturned at DRV since no one could find evidence of a prior AfD. So here it is now for full discussion. I reverted to the last version that looks like a biography (and have no opinion). ~ trialsanderrors 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only verifiable things that can be said about this person that come from sources with a name and a known reputation is that she appears in four porn movies and that a Usenet newsgroup was named after one of her pseudonyms. Nothing else — her nationality, the fanciful story about her background, her sexual orientation, her weight, her height, and even her age and name (It is interesting to note that one editor's edit summary is "In Polish there is no name like 'Anuschka'".) — is verifiable from good sources that have checked their facts, that can be trusted, and that are independent of the subject and of people trying to sell the subject's movies. That's not enough to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria.
Anna Marek is a good example of the distinction between fame and notability, and a rare example of someone who is famous but not notable. (Notability is not fame nor importance.) Many people have heard of her, but no-one apart from people who are (given that they invariably offer pictures and movies alongside the FAQ) trying to sell her movies has actually written and published a work of their own about her. Delete. Uncle G 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, a lack of information is a reason for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states that perpetual stubs with no possibility for expansion should be deleted. Because this person does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, in particular because she doesn't satisfy the primary criterion, there's no possibility for this article to be expanded beyond a stub. Note that editors have already had to add unverifiable content, such as her height and weight, and original research, such as the list of aliases, to the article, and have had to rely upon an unreliable source, just to get it as far as it is now.
Put another way: You state that little is known about this person. In fact, pretty much nothing is known. Were you to ask the people who Mark Grant knew what they actually know about Anna Marek, they would report that they don't actually know anything about her at all, apart from the fact that that's the name on a set of pictures. Since an encyclopaedia is a compendium of knowledge, and there is no knowledge to be had, there can obviously be no encyclopaedia article. If you want to show otherwise, please point to where there is knowledge that has been researched, fact checked, and published by a source that, unlike the vendors of pornography (who make up biographies) can be trusted not to be making things up from whole cloth. Uncle G 13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could benefit from more information, but the historical significance of Anna Marek is undeniable. Moreover, the importance of the adult entertainment industry in terms of cultural enlightenment and economic advancement and the evolution of sexual morality can hardly be overstated: humans are sexual creatures perhaps unique in their ability to appreciate vicariously the sexuality of others, and similarly unique in their (arguably unethical) efforts to regulate human sexuality between consenting parties.
Prudishness has neither any rightful nor any desirable place among the qualities of an encyclopaedia: those opposing the presentation of reference material related to (especially mainstream) pornography ultimately undermine the scholarly discussion and fair representation of topics arising from (or substantially connected with) human sexuality and the greater portion of the human experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.127.35 (talk)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be about a Catholic Bible camp that is held in Ireland. Google turns up very little about it, and it is completely unrelated to similarly titled recent documentary, Jesus Camp. The documentary is about a Evangelism bible camp in North Dakota, this article is about the likely thousands of small, non-notable bible camps. SirNuke 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Still a valid AFD as far as I can tell. W.marsh 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I revolke this entry for AfD. I made a careless mistake, and I apologize. --Bezking 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep; a note to ZlatkoT (talk · contribs): Articles for Deletion is not a vote, and if you want your input to be considered, please explain why you have "!voted" the way you have. In this case, there is a 100% concensus to keep, given that I'm forced to discard your input. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pop Idol spin off tv series fan non notalbe slang name. fancruft, original research, Ghit 63,500, 0hit on fox.com. Furnewsx 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible, wrong information. No any info in Internet: Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com.--Paukrus 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, this article has been created by single purpose account Nacholibre10. Tulkolahten 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Delete per above. Tulkolahten 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Geez, people, let's take a solid look at this list. Think about it for several seconds, there are a great deal of people that their actual full names are not known. More imperative for any name like this to be on an individual page. Yanksox 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete normally I'd PROD first but I see no way this article can ever be anything other that unsourced/original research/arguing the point. What third-party sources exist that prove the qualification inherent in the title? Remember Wikipedia is based on verfication not truth - while it might be self-evident to us all that Buzz Aldrin's first name is not commonly known (truth), how do we prove verfication for such a claim? Charlesknight 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. It's as simple as that. Reads more like an advertisement than an article. Amanduhh 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, can find no proof that this person exists as described in the article. There is a "David Jeffs" from "The Scots School, Albury" on this page, but this shows they are a Grade 12 student from last year - NOT that they left there, then went on to do a 5+ year uni degree, then went on to do other things as described in the article. -- Chuq 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless pov fork. Page is a duplicate of Dahuk, Iraq --Cat out 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus article seems to need cleanup rather than deletion. W.marsh 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page, and it has been going nowhere. Company is a tiny subsidiary with no notable products. All unverified statements in article were likely added by employees. Brownsteve 23:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comic. Exactly zero google hits for "Lord Jimmy Westminster". Additionally, the author of this comic is named Jeremy Travers. The author of this article is Jeremy.travers. Most likely a WP:COI here. IrishGuy talk 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BuzzFlash is simply not known outside of the 'blogosphere'. This would make it relatively obscure and therefor not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Amanduhh 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally thousands of Scientology-related organizations on Earth. Are they all notable? I say no. This one is only two sentences long and just basically says that it exists. I guarantee that 99 percent of all Scientologists on Earth have never ever heard of it. Highfructosecornsyrup 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE Tulkolahten 00:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion as WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:V, and non-notable web product. Was deleted, then recreated with identical content. I was going to speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY#G4 but noticed "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions". To stop this cycle happening again, I decided to list for deletion per the original proposer. Rockpocket 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]