The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:05Z
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:08Z
Keeps being recreated with unsourced information about a DCOM. Has been deleted numerous times, I think it should be deleted and protected from being recreated. I have it currently Redirecting to Give My Regards to Broadway. Even IMDB doesn't have a list for Give My Regards To Broadway. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete WP:SNOW. Full agreement with the statement on the first AFD: this isn't worth a 5-day discussion.--Húsönd 04:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted after an expired ((prod)) placed after the first AFD, which makes it a contested PROD. The original rationale was "fancruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This is a procedural nomination, so no opinion. Coredesat 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:11Z
Reads like a dictionary entry. WP:NOT#DICT may be applicable here. Navou talk 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Lucky Number Slevin. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:12Z
Doesn't deserve its own page, says nothing not found on the Lucky Number Slevin page. Delete and redirect. ChronicallyUninspired 01:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Kevin Murray 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect to Singapore. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:13Z
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. MER-C 01:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Guity Novin. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:48Z
There are no credible citations to indicate that there is, in fact, an "artistic movement." Googling the term comes up with Wikipedia, our mirrors, and several sites directly related to the artist.Bastiq▼e demandez 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are his other articles related to stuckism: Spectrum London the first West End commercial gallery to show the Stuckists, Go West the title of the first Stuckist artists exhibition, Stuckist demonstrations,Stuckism Photography, Art manifesto according to the article the Stuckists have made particular use of this to start worldwide movement of affiliated groups,Michael Dickinson He is a member of the Stuckist movement, and many more -- so much for being disinterested in a topic!!.I wonder what Stuckists think of meatpuppets? 24.81.86.162 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]I find, not infrequently, that I am editing (and sometimes starting) articles which do not have any prior personal interest for me. I also find that I am inserting edits, with which I may personally disagree or may not believe. This is in order to work towards a comprehensive, informative, authoritative and balanced encyclopedia.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:53Z
"Street art campaign" and apparently now a "design shop". Prod removed without comment by author in August, hasn't been back since. No evidence of importance for either venture, google turns up plenty of mirrors, screennames and boards but not much else. Deizio talk 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:54Z
Empty article about a 35m observation tower. Previous AfD had 1 keep !vote but was rather poorly attended. No indication of significance. German Wiki article doesn't seem to reveal its significance either but goes into a bit more detail about its height, location, nearby towers, zzzzzzzzz... Deizio talk 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bridge of no notability. Created by a single-purpose account, given the way it reads likely an associate of Mr Gelegotis. Almost no ghits for Mr Gelegotis [5] and even fewer for "his" bridge. The google links indicate this was a suggested name for the bridge but not that the name was finally chosen. Akihabara 03:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE THAT AS OF 02:03, 25 December 2006 THIS ARTICLE WAS COMPLETELY REWRITTEN WITH MULTIPLE NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES --Kevin Murray 02:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:55Z
Subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 11:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A college intramural team. De-prodded by an IP address without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 04:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. This is not the appropriate venue to hash-out notability guidelines regarding schools. ---J.S (T/C) 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteworthy junior high school. Only sources are the school itself and a directory; I'm unable to find anything with Google News or Lexis-Nexis. Attempt to redirect to the school district was reverted as "vandalism," so I'm now bringing it here. Shimeru 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MIT professor. Prior discussion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Columnist with contested syndication status. Prior deletion overturned at Deletion Review due to new information, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:59Z
Prior deletion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Note that there are two school with similar names. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for notability. I became suspicious when noticing this article is one of only two contributions of creator. Noted it gets practically zero non-wiki ghits. Nominate for deletion based on non-notability and a possibly made up term. Akihabara 04:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:03Z
Delete: Seems like a hoax to me. The G4 article doesn't mention it. The Entertainment company site has an empty framework. The show site loads for a long time and then just displays a logo. The kid's blog is juvenile. In any case, not notable, since "apauled g4" gets only 64 Google hits, many referring to the G4 computer. While you are at it, delete the "Apauled" redirect link. Hu 04:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message for Hu & others: Apauled is not a hoax; although it a hoax show airing on G4. To respond to Hu’s comments, the G4 article doesn't mention Apauled because the G4 article doesn’t list shows that are airing as interstitials throughout the schedule. The Entertainment company site does not have an empty framework, please see for yourself. The show site doesn’t load for a long time and then just displays a logo; please see for yourself. Please re-consider your comments above.
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:05Z
Content is entirely the result of original research. ju66l3r 05:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by User:Grutness (CSD A7). --- RockMFR 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. --- RockMFR 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a page called "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess! Redirect to there. Bigtop 05:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mucisian, sounds like a bit of a con artist!--Edchilvers 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:06Z
This is a POV fork, which Wikipedia:Content forking says may be deleted. Merge was a suggestion, however there is nothing in this article which is not in Mitanni itself which is cited by a reliable source and thus worth saving. Thanatosimii 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted Metros232 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by User:198.14.75.15 per "this person is wholly unremarkable." I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:08Z
WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Rory096 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Bueno Nacho. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:12Z
A fictional food in a children's TV show. Not notable. Improv 08:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:14Z
Article is ephemeral by nature, not encyclopedic in scope and not likely to be expanded for usefulness in the future. We don't/shouldn't make articles for top ten lists by magazines, tv stations, etc. RCEberwein | Talk 08:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:15Z
Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:31Z
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:15Z
Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:32Z
The result was keep. John254 01:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only claim to notability that the subject appears to have is being the father of a pop star. Pathlessdesert 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:27Z
Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:36Z
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:16Z
Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:38Z
The result was keep. John254 01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:42Z
The result was keep. John254 01:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:44Z
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:16Z
Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. A previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alike Boggan, applies, however, that AFD didn't mention the subject hosting a talk show. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 08:50Z
The result was Redirect to Mars University. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:19Z
Nominaton for deletion Article which is based on a mishmash of a one-time sports gag, a joke t-shirt, a sci-fi novel plot element, one cartoon episode, an obscure roleplaying game, a Norwegian band and a supposed nickname for Arizona State University - none of these elements actually seem to have anything to do with each other. 9,830 google hits but these mostly are 1)sites selling the joke t-shirt 2) references to the novel in which the university is one plot element 3) random attempts at using "University of Mars" humorously Bwithh 09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Hrisi Avgi. It sounds like a new article on the incident should be created; when that happens this article can be re-redirected to the article on the incident. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:23Z
A left-wing student who has once been the victim of an attack, does not deserve his own encyclopedia article. Mitsos 13:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Essjay (Talk) 09:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holzwarth is a studio musician, not a member of any known established group. See also Wikipedia:Notability (music). Thuresson 13:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD G12. J Di talk 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a French band who seem to have released records on 'their own label'. This does not seem to be a 'speedy deletion' candidate because of the claims that it is notable, but I think it does not meet the standard for inclusion. Please note that User:Noirdegout created the article. Sam Blacketer 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to ChaCha (search engine). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:28Z
Fails WP:BIO. Should be deleted or redirected to ChaCha Search. It references the voicemail article and I searched it and it mentions his name, but has "citation needed tags" so there are not verifiable or reliable sources for the voicemail thing. The Scott A. Jones article lacks reliable, verifiable, or notable sources in the article itself. Also the article has no talk page at this time. Scott's claim to fame appears to be his search engine. Anomo 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:28Z
Deletion nomination Pub whose only claim to fame is that someone was murdered outside it once - the murderess is somewhat encyclopedically notable as she was the last woman to be executed in Britain (if not for this, her crime would be an encyclopedically non-notable ordinary crime of passion, love triangles (squares?), and no-good men), but this doesn't make the pub outside of which she committed the crime notable enough for its own articleBwithh 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:29Z
Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 10:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Chlorophyllin. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:34Z
Article is on a non-notable commerical brand of chlorophyllin, which already has an existing article. A merge/redirect was attempted into chlorophyllin, but was objected to and reverted. - Pacula 20:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:36Z
Contested speedy. Non notable business. Nuttah68 10:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FirefoxMan 01:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Completing incomplete AfD from 12/22/06; procedural nomination, no opinion. SkierRMH 11:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:36Z
nn ski-jumper, whose chief (and almost only) achievement seems to be coming 74th in the Ski-jumping world cup. I've been unable to find a single proper source relating to him. Oh, and the article's completely unsourced, too... David Mestel(Talk) 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, and article was stubbed during the AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:38Z
This article reads like someone copied and pasted it out of a book. It is unencyclopedic and I cannot tell if it is fact or fiction. It needs sections, and introduction, and an overall structure. It needs a total rewrite. Sbrools 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:39Z
Advert for a non-notable company — fails WP:CORP, retroactive objection to proposed deletion. ➥the Epopt 13:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Ehrlichiosis. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:40Z
Created by CaliforniaLyme (talk · contribs) to bring her diagnosis and that of a suspected case into the limelight. Not a recognised medical entity; further discussion on Talk:Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura has not yielded any further indication that this page is about a legitimate medical diagnosis. JFW | T@lk 13:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first argument for keep is conditional, and as of now, no reliable sources have been added (Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source)... many of the other arguments for keep reference the first. I considered Mikka's argument but did not find it compelling when weighing against the delete arguments. Per WP:NEO, Delete without prejudice to a recreation if properly sourced. --++Lar: t/c 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That which is not a slang dictionary definition reads as original research. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect to International rules football. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:44Z
Appears to be original research and if its not original research i'd question the notiblity on the term Gnevin 15:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:46Z
Non-notable judge. Asserts notablity because her (non-notable) father-in-law has a prison named after him - doesn't work for me. Emeraude 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:30Z
WP:NOTE The only checkable references are the subject's own webpages. The other cited references include a magazine called Calabasas (which links to The City Of Calabasas), a magazine called OYE (which links to nothing), a magazine called Peace (no link), a magazine called Infamous (which links to a definition of the word) and Playboy. If 4 out of the 5 magazines a band is mentioned in are not notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, it would come to follow that such a band is not notable.
It would be tough to try to see this band even if you wanted to - whereas a Google search for "The Pussycat Dolls are performing" or "Catch The Pussycat Dolls" returns links, a Google search for "Sugar Blush Beauties are performing" or "Catch Sugar Blush Beauties" returns nothing.
This group was founded by Rachel Sterling, also up for deletion for being non-notable.[28] TruthGal 15:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:48Z
Non-notable university program and unencyclopedic. ju66l3r 15:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate giving this article a chance to improve and demonstrate its notability (if the present version is not sufficient for people already) rather than just deleting it. -DoctorW 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:49Z
WP:OR violation. ju66l3r 15:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:51Z
Non notable road accident. The law change mentioned happened 8 years after this event, which had no influence on the law.(http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506857.hcsp) Nuttah68 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:37, 31 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)) . |
The user who created this page decided that another page, already a featured list, was too long. They then cut down the articles greatly, and put them in three seperate articles. He also decided that they should be featured, as the original one was. Couldn't think of any speedy deletion criteria that fit, but I think that it should be speedied anyway. This is the first of them, I am also nominating-
J Milburn 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it would be better but, I was proven otherwise. Zach111493 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:52Z
This is more fancruft similar to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pre-made_characters_in_The_Sims. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, Wikipedia is not a game walkthrough guide. Nothing in the article asserts the notability of the characters listed (note generic "characters" such as "Babies" and "Butler" in the list). This information is probably suitable for a gaming wiki.
Additional comments: 1) This has nothing to do with the notability of The Sims, only the notability of this page. 2) I am not arguing against the idea of creating lists of notable characters in a game (there are plenty of examples of that), but there's no reason to have an infodump of non-notable characters like this. When games, TV shows, films and books have lists or pages made for specific characters, there is a good reason for it (such as the character becoming important elsewhere, influential, or a cultural icon) and there's no reason to believe that's the case here. Tarinth 16:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:53Z
Contested speedy (no reason given). Non notable sporting facility maintained by Canadian military. Nuttah68 16:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nom withdrawn and Speedy Keep. Navou talk 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an ad Navou talk 17:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:53Z
Self promotional walled garden. Architecture co. deleted after prod, also nominating his band, releases and record label here for various failures of WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Deizio talk 17:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Renaissance College Hong Kong. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:54Z
No sources, non-notable, should be deleted. CraigMonroe 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. (Carried out by Yanksox.) Picaroon 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So apparently a webcomic hosted on freewebs doesn't fit into CSD[29]. Am I supposed to be nominating geocities and angelfire websites instead? - hahnchen 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:55Z
Recreated speedied article about a theatre group. Notability asserted in the form of a mention in the Washington Post. StoptheDatabaseState 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to WRT54G. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:58Z
Previously speedied, recreated. Router firmware, don't see the connection with WP:SOFTWARE. Deizio talk 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:04Z
One man's constructed language without any evidence of its spread, usage or notability. The only source is the creator's geocities. This can probably be speedied A7. - hahnchen 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete totally non notable unverified, unverifiable no reference sources . Dakota 04:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Symbiosis System of Acting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Notability (Note: this post is copied to this forum due to relevence) Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.
January 19, 2003 Courier-Journal Article ID: lou2003012007205388: Director hopes film lures bit of Hollywood to Louisville
Included in that article are references to my work on several major films, and supports my status as a professional and NOTABLE filmmaker. The article written by Nancy Rodriguez was supported by interviews and research by the journalist.
Contrary to stevietheman and Dhartung's claims, I have read the article and the definition of "Notability" as provided by Wikipedia. The inclusion of this article is supported the article mentioned above as my reputation as a filmmaker within the Louisville businss community was sufficient to provide me support during my productions, including from major business leaders based entirely on my name recognition. By the very definition of "Notability" whether on a local, national or international level, my contributions to the film communities in Louisville, Florida, London, Los Angeles, NYC have provided me respect based on name recognition within the communities. International recognition will come as a result of the upcoming release of Midnight Snow. However, I have become aware that there is an effort to promote regional and locally related articles. If nothing else, the article would qualify for a Louisville based circulation based on local notability resulting from the article in the Louisville Courier-Journal (which is an internationally recognized publication).
Regarding Symbiosis System of Acting, this is an "Acting Method" no different than any method taught to actors, such as the Meisner Method. Since I have already qualified by argument for inclusion of this article, Symbiosis System of Acting would qualify by default, just as the articles relatd to Meisner's techniques. However, the category is called "Acting Methods". An acting method by itself doesn't become notable. It is notable through a grassroots effort through teaching. 183 students of acting have been taught this method since 2004. That isn't necessarily a small number considering that it was only developed into a formatted program during the past decade. That doesn't make it any less important than Meisner or Strausberg which has been taught for several decades with an established following. But the definition of Acting Method would qualify Sysbiosis System's inclusion as an article about Acting Methods because it is exactly that... an Acting Method. Exclusion of more contemporary techniques such as Symbiosis System, Dawn Wells Film Acting Boot Camp or Bob Fraser's "You Must Act" programs would make the category on Wikipedia's Acting Methods incomplete since most of the Meisner, Stanislavsky and Strausberg techniques are relevent to stage acting only and are mostly outdated. There are too many qualifying techniques being used today in film acting that under the guidelines you are addressing would be disqualified and would thereby render Wikipedia as an out-dated resource.
Qualification of an article is not left for interpretation by Editors. However, I do feel that the Editors, who are not attorneys, should consider that by interpreting written policy, they are setting a precedence that would have to be followed very carefully on all future articles. As courts are careful about "interpretating" law, Editors and Administrators need to be careful about interpreting policy, otherwise Wikipedia could quickly become an outdated and unreliable source of information based on unnecessary exclusion of so many relevent articles.
Vanispamcruftisement
Vanispamcruftisement (IPA: /væ.nə.spæm.kɹəf.ʼtaɪz.mənt/; sometimes abbreviated as vanispamcruft or VSCA) is a portmanteau term comprising several editorial faults which some Wikipedians see as cardinal sins: conflict of interest, spam, cruft, and advertisement. The term was coined by Freakofnurture to describe an article nominated for deletion which exhibited all the above properties, being an article apparently created by the owner of a small company, about that company, name-checking the owner of the firm with a brief resume of his skills, and in respect of a company whose products appeared on the face of it to be of strictly limited appeal outside the world of geekdom.
Contrary to steveietheman or Dhartung's claims, neither article qualifies under the above definition. The J. Kristian O'Daugherty article was written by Ilson Lakosky about a film director. There are no services... no company... no advrtisements anywhere, including on my website at www.jaykofilms.com. What any reader is directed to through external links, are pages discussing the film industry, still photography, an extensive resource on acting under the Symbiosis System of Acting, and ten galleries of original, and obviously professional quality photographic work. Everything that any serious artist's website might contain. The reference to JayKO would be no different than referencing Askew in an article about Kevin Smith. They go hand in hand.
The Symbiosis System article doesn't promote any service which payment is expected. In fact, I've noticed that Ilson provided most of the structure of the system in the article, although somewhat incomplete. All information provided to the public about Symbiosis System of Acting allows the reader to apply the system without having to attend classes or purchase any services, books or materials. In otherwords... Free Use of the acting system by the reader without obligation.
As to my position on the threats of Legal Action, I do find Ilson's remarks somewhat inappropriate. Any legal action would have to be made by me alone and that is not my objective. I'd prefer this matter be resolved without further disruption and in a professional and respectful manner. If it cannot be resolved through these debates, then Wikipedia's adminstrators were wise enough to provide Dispute Resolution when conflicts arise. Hopefully we can all come to a fair agreement on how this should be handled without having to engage futher procedures.
I will stand by my opinion that the Editors need to apply reasonable standards when reviewing articles and submitting them for deletion. What may be appropriate for one category may not be for another. You should consider each topic carefully and apply standards that relate directly to the subject matter being adressed in the article.
God bless and Happy Holidays to everyone this season. --Jkris97 20:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It pains me to come to this decision, but I personally prefer not to have Symbiosis System of Acting nor my name associated with these discussions further. I appreciate that Ilson Lakosky considered me accomplished enough to draft an article documenting my film work and my development of the Symbiosis System of Acting. However, based on these discussions, I am request that all traces of my name and my acting program be immediately removed from Wikipedia, including all discussions in these forums. I will also expand that to include future articles that may include my name or my work, even if it passes Dhartung and Stevietheman's definition of "Notable".
At this time, I am finding ABC, CNN and MSNBC's questions concerning the value of Wikipedia and WikiNews more accurate than I prefer based on two very unpleasant experiences I've had, both centered around the decision on one of this organization's editors. Therefore, I ask that my request be immediately implemented without delay.--Jkris97 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep - Absolutely frivolous nomination, AFD isn't cleanup, move or merge. hahnchen 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly appliciable to move to Xbox. --Meryl Kiniry 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:31Z
This article seems to be self promotion with no serious claim of notability --Kevin Murray 10:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, allowing for improvement of the article that currently has borderline evidence of notability. —Centrx→talk • 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like an advert, does not look like it meets WP:WEB. This article was deleted by Radiant!, and is now recreated. Ideas? —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 18:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just worked on article again to comply with article format policies - please review - Happy Holidays - All thanks. --Lysanzia 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More information (again) for article has just been added. Still working to improve entirety. Please check newest version. In reference to noteworthiness of publication. The start date for the mag (1996) places it as one of the earliest serial online mag/journals. 187,000 readers per issue may have some merit also for this case. UNESCO gave web awards up to the year 2003... so current pages showing the award for 1999 (which applies here) are much harder to produce but might be found. I'm looking now. It is possible for me to contact UNESCO directly to get an email letter issued on this for your validation needs. Thanks for all your suggestions. --Lysanzia 06:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much more info on magazine history etc has just been added.
All admin and eds.. please help review. Hope to have the "deletion" banner on this article lifted soon. All thanks.--Lysanzia 07:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Radiant! Just added many external links to many university (collage level) sites that have this magazine listed in their cirriculum (most are Women's Studies Depts, some English Depts and a Political Science Consortium of 80 universities). I am pleasantly surprised so many universities are using this magazine in their classes.You can link over to review this at Moondance magazine. I'm cleaning up and trying to improve all other aspects. All thanks for your continued help. --Lysanzia 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brianyoumans... Trying very hard not to include "pitch" language in this article. Will check on readership claim numbers and correct. Perhaps this number is page views? Thanks for your help and assistance. --Lysanzia 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:32Z
Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
okay, how long do I have to put all this together? I'm going to have to do some research.
Thank you. Yes I am a big fan of his, he's my hero. I know he's on his way to stardom and just was a little offended you didnt feel the same way. I redid the page and will continue to improve it.
The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I can find nothing about this 'language' in any major papers (using Lexis-Nexis) or using Google Scholar. Google does give a fair number of hits, but most appear to be Yahoo groups, blogs, or similar non reliable sources. At best, this appears non-notable, at worst, a hoax, or something made up in school one day. As such, I think this should be deleted, unless notability can be established. Author replied to notice I put on his User Talk stating:
I suggest that you compare Ygyde with other oligosynthetic languages, for example, Sona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sona_language) and aUI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUI). Ygyde is superior to both of them. The Ygyde site (http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyde.htm) is the equivalent of a small book (114 letter size pages). Let Ygyde be judged on its own merits.
However, this does not address the problem of notability - Aagtbdfoua 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of Noahide Laws. There are six laws, to which a seventh was added, but no primary source refers to the original six as "Six Laws of Adam". JFW | T@lk 19:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as ((db-nocontext)). (aeropagitica) 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While a very impressive math problem, that's about what it is. A math problem. It has no encyclopedic value. American Patriot 1776 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Prominent figure in the field of evolutionary medicine." Gets 578 Google hits. Most relevant publications on a very narrow area of iron homeostasis in neurodegenenative disease, mostly unproven. Fails WP:PROF in my view JFW | T@lk 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Kevin Murray 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:06Z
Doesn't appear notable to me. It does attempt to assert notability, otherwise I would have used WP:CSD#A7, however I don't think it is sufficently notable to warrant inclusion in WP. Guinness 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:07Z
Contested PROD. Yanksox 20:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:08Z
This list is a duplicate of ((TTCstations)). -- Selmo (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The website in question does not deserve a mention in any reputable logbook of knowledge, such as Wikipedia. The website is an attempt to voice nationalist propoganda in a medium as powerful as Wikipedia. This underground website has been made by nationalists who have made gross factual inaccuracies and childish errors. Kindly delete this effort of listing an underground, nationalist website on Wikipedia. Freedom skies 20:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone deletes this I would like to talk to a Neutral moderator. Neutral meaning non Indian.
Check out this screenshot and understand that Neutrality is a term my fellow Indian friends dont understand. http://upload.pwnage.nu/files/upload2/pakhub-threat.JPG Half of them are members of extremist Hindu forums, who try illegal ways of getting me shut down.
THIS IS NOT an advertisement. This is a description of our argument. Its one thing you dont wish to read it, but another that you wish to stop other people from reading it.
Unre4L 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "pakhub home" on google
Even though I fail to see your argument. Unre4L 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site is not in question. The site is only given as an external link. The main body of the article describes the dispute in question.
I thought this was suppose to be a discussion. Not a bunch of people typing speedy delete Unre4L 21:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a dispute which you can find all over the net. I used one site as an external link. Unre4L 21:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to similar article describing this dispute. I am willing to edit the current article to make it abide by the rules. What exactly do you wish me to change about it? Unre4L 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed references to the website in the main body of the articles. I wish to expand the article to describe the dispute in more detail. I will need more time for this. I suggest removing the speedy Deletion templates while I expand the article and add whatever you are requesting. Unre4L 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide you with dozens of links showing I am not the only person who is disagreeing with this subject. Like I said. I will carify all this, all I need is another chance to expand the article. Unre4L 22:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Delete the article. but please note this place is full of Hindu extremist who have attacked the site, and been on my back since I argued with them. They will obviously make sure nobody willing to argue will be heard. Mods like you show you couldnt care less. Good luck. I am out of here. P.s You should take a look at the so called Indian history articles if you think I have a conflict of interest. Unre4L 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still want to make an article describing this dispute in detail. Please let me know more about how I can do this without breaking any rules or offending anyone here. Unre4L 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try finding citations from Stanley Wolpert, or someone similar. Using JSTOR is a good way. Freedom skies 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unre4L, you might try to put this on your user page.--D-Boy 05:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all, except redirect Sunshine On A Rainy Day and Sunshine on a Rainy Day to Zoë (singer). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:18Z
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:25Z
EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 ) The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the song project on Wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:25Z
EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the song project on Wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:25Z
EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the song project on Wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:25Z
EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me)). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the song project on Wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as author requested by blanking the page (G7).--Kchase T 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on speaking foreign languages. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:32Z
Contains a claim of notability - that in two appearances on a short-lived game show, the subject became "the Ken Jennings of the tween set." No source for this claim. Other claims like "[she] is loved by all" suggest that this is posted by a friend of hers. FreplySpang 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:32Z
Futsal team of the University of Teesside. Contested speedy. Don't think it is notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion Samir धर्म 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for un deleting it.... at the minute its unfinished, i feel its worthy of its place on the site as we will be going professional next season, plus Futsal is an up and coming sport.... please give me at least a month to finish the page off, im a uni student so i dont get alot of time, Thanks
Teesside Futsal Club; It is small minded people like you and the FA that are holding Futsal back.... There are professional teams, such as Tranmere Victoria, Futsal even has its own FA Cup which the winners of that go into the Uefa Futsal Cup. Its going Fully pro next season with its own Premier League.
The National Team have played over 40 matches so to say its minor is incorrect, please undelete it
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can not determine the notability here, I nominated for CSD per A7, but deletion was contested. We shall discuss it here. Navou talk 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:33Z
EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the song project on wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:34Z
EDIT: Nomination request is merged with "Tomorrow (Emma Bunton song)". Please vote on that nomination instead of here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomorrow_%28Emma_Bunton_song%29 )
The article relates to an album track on an Emma Bunton album. The page contains no useful information - and other additions such as song writers already appear on the album page (Free Me). There is, imo, no reason for this article to be created; its hard to see how it can be expanded - and any information that is added can be incorporated into the album article. Rimmers 21:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the song project on wikipedia, hence invalid for deletion.Zigzig20s 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep: Nomination withdrawn. Heimstern Läufer 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think am not sure if this album is notable: Made by what appears to be a non-notable group and few Google hits. Heimstern Läufer 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tinsel And Marzipan is a charted hit on IRMA, the Irish Recorded Music Association, as of the week ending on December 21 2006 and is theofore notable under WP:MUSIC. P.S. I'm from California Laganojunior 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:35Z
probably not notable per WP:MUSIC —Swpb talk contribs 22:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:35Z
Simply a dictionary definition. WP:NOT &c.Bookishreader45 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied by Pilotguy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:36Z
Fails WP:CORP and WP:SOFT. According to the article, this company has ceased development on its product because it failed to attract funding. Tarinth 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:37Z
Not a recognized neologism. Does not appear to be a recognized term in the industry. The majority of items in the list are redlinks, and one other that is currently in AfD. That leaves one item of possible notability, but that's not enough for a list-type or category-type page. Tarinth 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 07:38Z
Neologism. The term hasn't gained acceptance, and according to the XORG page it was a term made up by a single company. Nothing in the article suggests that the term has expanded its use beyond that company's marketing. It is possible that some of the content in this page could be merged with the MMOFPS article. Tarinth 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ★MESSEDROCKER★ 07:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source to verify its existence, even through its own links, and it is partially written in foreign languages. Also it is most likely Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive as that had the same working titles. Laganojunior 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:36Z
Fails WP:NOTE. According to the article, the subject's claim to fame is being a model for automobile tires and having appeared as one of the throngs of dancers on Soul Train. As for her modeling career, the article says she's been on "some covers," but fails to mention any of these covers. No individual fact contained in this entry is individually sourced. The final line of the article - "Still single, her ideal man is "charming, intelligent, charismatic...and taller than me!"" indicates that this page might better be suited on Match.com than Wikipedia. TruthGal 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please note that if an article is appropriate for Hebrew Wikipedia, the same applies for the English Wikipedia as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN Article claims that subject is a journalist and writer, but a Google search fails to turn up a single article by the subject. TruthGal 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 01:38Z
Fails WP:NN Hardly anything on Google about the subject, which would discount the claim of article that subject is "famous." Article also seems to indicate that the subject's claim to fame is wanting businessmen and politicians to listen to him (with the implication that they don't). Article claims that the subject's "long-time rival" is Uri Geller, but there's nothing to that effect under Geller's entry. Finally, one of the three reference links provided is an interview by "by publicist Yoni Raz Portugali," who is currently nominated for deletion as well.[48] TruthGal 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The supporting references do not appear to be non-trivial, and the information in the article is weak, not suggesting sufficient notability. --Kevin Murray 17:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known quite well. Many google notable refernces Marina T. 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daniel J. Leivick 17:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasSpeedy Delete Canadian-Bacon 02:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to verify this term for TransWiki inclusion, additionally WP:NOT#DICT may be applicable here. Navou talk 00:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a non-notable neologism for which no independent reliable sources about the term were offered. GRBerry 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Few if any Google results for phrase; non-notable; autobiography Subwayguy 00:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 15:23Z
Of all the entries I've nominated for deletion based on WP:NN non-notability, this subject is the non-notablist. Article only offers 2 pieces of infomation about the subject.
The first: the subject "does work mostly for Pepsi." Does she fill vending machines with the stuff? One can only wonder, as there are no independent sources or citations offered.
The second: the subject is "well-known for resisting the common trend for import models to get breast enlargements." Well-known enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia? You decide! TruthGal 01:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I could opt-out and take the easy path (close as "no consensus"), but that would be wrong. The arguments to delete are plenteous and well-argued, while the keep arguments are (save one or two) entirely unconvincing.--Ezeu 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article's deletion has been discussed on a number of prior occasions (Sept 04 - keep, Dec 05 - keep, Feb 06 - delete, then recreated, March 06 - delete, DRV - keep deleted, then recreated, AFD April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus), and most recently AFD July 06 - no consensus.
As Proto said it in starting the 5th AFD for this article 6 months ago, "Frankly, it is time this went." I agree. It has now been 6 months since this article was last nominated for deletion. During that period the article has been tagged as needing verifiable sources, none have appeared. And it is my belief that none ever will. This article is simply not verifiable. The entire premise of this supposed game leads to having no verifiability at all. As such, any user can add their interpretation of "the game," and claim it as the truth. Such a thing should not be tolerated in any true encyclopedia. Delete KnightLago 01:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, you read a message on a forum, or you are involved with www.savethegame.org, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Speedy delete unverifiable and mostly nonsense also seems to fail WP:NFT --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]