< February 2 | February 4 > |
---|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Albert Piercing
The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? Opes 00:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Consensus to remove material; no consensus as to pure delete or redirect, will redirect. Babajobu 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page: there is nothing special about a Prelude in G Major (as opposed to other keys), and it isn't referring to a particular work. It doesn't add anything that the Prelude_(music) page doesn't already contain.
[T]/[C] 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 13:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown "politician", grand total of 2 googles, 1 non-wiki. Needs a serious amount of context and evidence - otherwise delete. Only the word "politician" and existence of a stub saves this from a speedy tag... ++Deiz 00:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalistroadster 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not notable. period. Opes 00:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect Characters in Bionicle. You'll be amazed: read Toa Metru for example. mikka (t) 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a lot of nonsense. James084 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete as blatant advertising. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
adspam Doctor Whom 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A3). howcheng {chat} 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to show context or importance of the subject matter. James084 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 15:21, 3 February 2006
Looks like a vanity/non-notable article - the two most prominent Hibernian Insurance companies on the internet don't mention this person as anyone in their management team -- Aim Here 00:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge with Wahine Volleyball; not notable enough to warrant separate article.
Keep 1. He's not with the Wahine Volleyball program, he joined a different team. 2. He caused a HUGE uproar with the gay communittee, the NCAA and which got him mentioned in every other newspaper in the country. 3. Well known in volleyball across the nation. --Masssiveego 08:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hawaii alone he is front of crowds of 10,000, has been front of a crowd of more then 10,000 in Nebraska. Has been seen by more then a million people across the state. Is in many major newspapers, as newsworthy. --Masssiveego 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is someone's fanmade Digimon, not a real Digimon. Shining Celebi 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another fan-made Digimon, not a real Digimon. Shining Celebi 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original reseach, no verified sources. Wizrdwarts 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the page is full of irrelevancies Cairoguy 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, frivolous nomination. Monicasdude 19:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was A quick search on Google shows what a lame stub this is. This Wiki article is, I think, the only link for this neologism.. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep. – ABCDe✉ 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not suitable for Wikipedia, it's advertising, and it's a vanity page. Some middle schooler is probably trying to get his kicks. The Gwai Lo 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect to Dangerous and Moving. I am making this decision because there isn't really too much in this article to merge with Dangerous and Moving, considering the content that's already in it. OTOH, redirecting still leaves the content in history, if someone finds something of value to merge in the future. Deathphoenix 14:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete, then redirect to da Costa. Deathphoenix 14:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non standard title with redirect to non standard title, article material is at da Costa -- Paul foord 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start? First, as it is, it's a WP:NPOV violation, as it largely serves as one-stop-shopping for those wanting to know whose products to boycott as a result of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Second, it violates WP:V. Third, it's poorly written and already has a cleanup tag on it. Fourth, it's listcruft; there are only seven companies on the entire list. At the least, I believe it's a prime candidate for merging into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. (This has already been proposed, but the talk page is moving so fast that the merge discussion has already been moved to an archive page and thus will probably never reach a consensus.) At best, it should probably be deleted entirely. Aaron 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Boycott of Danish items and the redirect Denmark boycott. Wikipedia is not the place to push a POV agenda. Get a blog or spend the money for a webhost.--24.192.40.105 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 13:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article asserts that two CDs have been recorded, but does not state whether they have been released or not. No vote. - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Jacoplane 06:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted as well. This is hardly a substantiated claim at this time, and contains serious hyperbole. Sukiari 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOT since it is a list. Moreover, it is, in my opinion, gamecruft. --M@thwiz2020 02:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Boldly redirected by User:Night Gyr. Peyna 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a more general subject than this article makes it out to be - there are other spigot mortars than the one invented by Lt.-Col. Blacker. There is also a better treatment of spigot mortars in general at Mortar (weapon), and the Blacker Bombard itself is described at PIAT. In all, a separate page seems redundant. Hairy Dude 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity page without verifiable information Sukiari 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --M@thwiz2020 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be cleaned up. It's on the edge of being vanity. Mathwiz2020's original complaint is clearly no longer valid, however. WoodenTaco 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician. A search on Google yields only 3 results. --*drew 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with *drew, pretty much textbook non-notable. WoodenTaco 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say to merge into some other article about "The Gorge" (the movie this character is from) but the movie isn't even listed on The Gorge, as disambig page! Plus, fails WP:FICT. --M@thwiz2020 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another fan-made Digimon. Shining Celebi 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not create an article without linking to it from at least one other article . Royboycrashfan 04:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Information already duplicated elsewhere, notably in isotope pages EGGS 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synonym chart of nuclides. Other editors cannot build upon unsourced data, adding references would amount to a complete rewrite from scratch. Also, the usefulness as a big list seems questionable since there is already a split request. Adding more of decay data would easily result in a growth beyond several Megabytes. Femto 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a big fat advertisement.Ruby 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like spam, smells like spam, tastes like spam. James084 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.
Royboycrashfan 04:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy del: db-bio. mikka (t) 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page describes the nickname of a non-notable avionics technician in the RAF. Lockley 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 13:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seemingly non-notable rock band from Cork, Ireland. Does not qualify for notability under any points of WP:MUSIC. Band members are listed by first names only, and ex-drummer "Darren" seems to have maintained most of the article. 177 Google hits, many of them Wikipedia mirrors, and the band's own website/blog. Have apparently recorded a demo and an album, but the album is not named. --Canley 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 11:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising, no real hope for improvement. Night Gyr 03:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Blatant advertisement, not well written. Royboycrashfan 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
site is blatant advertising about "potential" manga and anime projects. Only two sites come up on a google search: this Wiki article (and mirrors) and the blog of one of the "company owners". An official website points to a fanfic site. No indicator that this is a real company or anything other than a few guys with wishful thinking, but wishes do not Wikiworth make.み使い Mitsukai 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a dictionary definition of a slang term. Kjkolb 03:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parent "company" is Roaming Janitors International, an article also up for deletion. Convention has no website to speak (there is a cornstock website, but it seems long defunct). Only indicator that this convention will occur is based on a one-sentence statement on a personal blog. Other convention "merging" into Cornstock has no google hits at all save for the Cornstock Wiki article. This is merely advertising, nothing more. み使い Mitsukai 03:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mailing list Dr Debug (Talk) 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was xarding delete. DS 04:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN neologism, "It's [sic] origins are from one kid from a summer camp I used to go to". Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's Delete this one for the same reasons found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with plot twists: hopelessly POV, unwieldy list that can easily be categorized, the plot twist can be better noted in each article, has about as much utility as a list of video games with male protagonists, etc. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link at the bottom just goes to a bunch of pictures with the word "art" under them. Apparently that's what this article is about, although that's also unclear. Unencyclopedic in any case. Delete. Karmafist 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a ((nn-bio)), but since it has a picture and some links I put it up here. It is a bio of an 18th century farmer whose children are slightly more notable. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Page looks genuine, but neither Google nor Allmusic has heard of either the band nor its members. I'd delete it myself, but I'm not confident enough of its being a fabrication. Thoughts? DS 04:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense to me. If it can't be made comprehensible it should be deleted. -SCEhardT 04:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty crystal ball article. The infobox says it is about a game to be released on November 1, 2011. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a crystal ball Ruby 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, seems to also be vanity. Google gives only 127 results. PoptartKing 04:47, 3 February 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)) . |
Yet it's also gained over 1,000,000 views from the DH Site and has become pretty popular for a mini-web series. MyInnerFred
please, do not delete this page. tis a funny series and it would be a shame if it was deleted.-Neosporin
Its a parody! Its not infringing any copyrights. If anything, the subtitled cutscenes of what really is going on in the scene is more copyright infringing than Dramatic Hearts.
It's an incredibly funny work of comedy genuis with a large number of fans. Deleting it would be a pity.
Dramatic Hearts is a work of art and comedy, to remove this page would be a shame, I'm sure if any of you actually watched Dramatic Hearts you wouldn't delete it. Long Live DH! - Tom Seiniger
All of you bigots who believe Dramatic Hearts is dumb are the same people who hate the world and/or are easily offended. It uses the same sense of humor as other popular machinimas such as Red Vs. Blue... why not delete their article? You people make no sense... long live DH! - Deathspank
It's a work of comedy, and parody. An extremely well done one with a lot of effort put into it at that. If things like Red vs. Blue, 8-bit Theater, and PvP can all have Wiki pages, including that goofy Elemenstor saga or whatever it called, could justifably fall into the same catagory, and should be deleted as well.
Have any of you people even seen DH? If you have you'd know that there is no copyright infringment whatsoever.He's not selling it to anyone. It's a well done comedy series that deserves a page on Wikipedia. VIVA DH!- Joten9115
Dude oh my god, i love dramatic hearts. ya'll can't delete it if you watched it you would so how funny it was and how it has made me laugh time and time again. please don't take these memories and laughs away. This mini-series deserves a page on Wikipedia!!! Do not delete it would make me and many other wikipedia viewers very upset. please do not delete DH it makes the many laugh-needy people of this world not go hungry!!! Long Live DH!!! - James
Well language wise I've already cleaned it up a bit, to my knowledge (aside from a few words which are in character names) there are no offensive words on the page, only semi-suggestive. I would like to know why I have to "clean" up the pages when nothing is overally offensive and when Wikipedia states that it is not censored. As for popularity, what determines what makes it popular? I would consider a few thosand hits a day to make something pretty popular, to my knowledge RVB had a Wikipage far before it became as well known as it is now, before all the awards and becoming a huge hit. It's proven to be atleast semi-popular, I mean if you think it deserves deletion, well, can't stop you. I wouldn't expect a 2-3 month old series to compete with other series that have been around a good 3-5 years. MyInnerFred
So if I can get some reviews from well known sites then I could keep the page up? MyInnerFred
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another crystal ball type hoax, this time about a 2018 video game, brought to us by ProtomanX. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonderswan XD. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball-like speculation Ruby 05:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge with Exploration of Mars, which covers this under "Future Missions". Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article title, lead and contents have nothing to with each other. The lead references a nonexistent comic and the article contents are cut-and-pasted from List of characters from Family Guy.--Muchness 05:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a random collection of things - and a list from a nn website would seem to apply. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. -R. fiend 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by RexNL (CSD A6, attack page) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 12:45Z
Delete Personal attack and non-notable bar in an undisclosed city Ruby 05:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be advertising, does not provide evidence of notability. Delete unless evidence provided from Wikipedia:Reliable sources so that we may verify the contents. brenneman(t)(c) 05:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge as per RayGates; this is an editorial decision due to lack of consensus. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK on WP:DRV. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Original nomination and votes for SGCSim (Computer Program) only.) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 15:34Z
Non-notable program that simulates what is sometimes seen on computer screens in the background of SG1 scenes. Ugh. And it's not even being worked on anymore. Cyde Weys 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also: SGCSim (Forum) (AfD discussion). —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 12:38Z
I am bundling the AFD for Stargate command simulator' at this point. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 15:32Z
(nomination for Stargate command simulator') "Stargate command simulator" gets one non-wiki Google hit; delete non-notable. Melchoir 09:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(votes re Stargate command simulator')
Begin bundled AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 15:33Z
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a hoax, as there are no results on Google for this usage. -- Kjkolb 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Doc ask? 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Highly POV, and the article was deleted before The text is different this time around, or I would have put this up for a speedy; but the justification for the first delete--the website is non-notable--still exist. The current text is highly POV. EngineerScotty 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about some "Transformer Fest 2004" by some Finnish Nazi sympathiser who hates the British. No one in their right mind cares about this. Delete. JIP | Talk 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly absurd. DELETE. 84.64.81.143
Keep per User:GeorgeStepanek. Not that Wikipedia wouldn't be improved if "No one in their right mind cares about this" were a criterion for deletion, butut it wouldn't apply to this article.Monicasdude 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is about what bored students do in class when they are not thinking up hoax articles for WP. Ruby 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete, it's all non-notable until someone loses an eye. Keep per Mitsukai. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement and promotion. Delete TheRingess 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written as an advertisement and the company has no claim to notability in the article. Kjkolb 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
614 Google hits, and I don't know if a podcast is encyclopedia material. x42bn6 Talk 07:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt at saturating wikipedia with nonsense. Don't allow the neat text and organization to make a bafoon of you. Speedy Delete Garbage. ZeroTalk 07:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've Googled all of the red-link bands, labels, and venues, and none of them come up with anything. Photos supposedly taken in a club called RetroFit look like that were taken in a residence. The article has no categories, and no other articles link here. My opinion is that this is an elaborate joke, but even I assume the artist is real, he doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSIC standards. --djrobgordon, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. TheRingess 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Student essay. POV and original research. -- RHaworth 08:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 05:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation/website. Advertising. Nsevs • Talk 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this article should be deleted has nothing to do with this being an article about fiction and has nothing to do with notability. It is composed almost entirely of original research by a single indivdual who has, as stated in the talk page, decided to take references to various things and events in the universe of the series and provide them with his own scientific explanations that are found nowhere in the books, the authors words elsewhere, or any published material. One user proposed that the article be merged, but as virutally every word is original research, that is not a feasible approach. It should be deleted. Indrian 08:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oakad 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism/Protologism with 0 google hits. Delete per WP:NEO --Hansnesse 09:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A long list of companies that have licensed MPEG-2. Unencyclopedic. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 09:28Z
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be part of an edit war over the Jung Sin Yuk-Do entry, and one side put this up to slap the other side, which really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are too many 'he did this' and 'he didn't do that but should have' lines; also, it links several times to the same martial arts entry, so I wonder about this entry's importance. ddlamb 09:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to the Music standards, poorly written, nothing links here. I am always reluctant to nominate for speedy delete, but this could go there. ddlamb 10:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently created by one of the two members of the band (see image creation comments), does not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, album appears to only be available as free download from their website. Delete -- The Anome 10:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to assert signifigance, quasi-attack, uncited. Always happy to reconsider if new information provided.
brenneman(t)(c) 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List is completely redundant with Category:Archaeological sites by country. All entries on the list are in that category under their respective country or a subcategory (Like Category:Roman sites in Italy. The list is un-dynamic, unweildy, large, incomplete and impossible to keep updated. No annotations or other supplemental information are included in the list, very few red links are listed. Many items on the list are not archaeological sites at all, but instead are archaeological cultures, cites with no record of archaeology, entire regions of a country or significant archaeological artifacts. The category is more useful and requires much less maintenace to keep current. Currently both the category and the list are listed in Category:Archaeological sites making navigation to the category as easy as navigation to the list, and the list does not have a record of frequent edits. Pschemp | Talk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sweetie Petie 11:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable combat reenactments club. No Google hits for Leathernecks Ledrhals (except Wikipedia). No assertion of notability. Article neglected since it was created by 81.98.161.161 (talk · contribs) on 2005-09-10. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 11:56Z
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 05:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete grandfather vanity. Melaen 12:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack page, bolstered by evidence of WP:SNOW. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable, attack page, not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia 2775 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete both pages. There was no opposition here to deleting the disambig page, and though the other page to which it disambiguates remains, it's the only page that does, so there is no longer a need to disambiguate. --W.marsh 05:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web forum: 217 registered members. See also SGCSim (Computer Program) (AfD discussion). I am also including the disambig page in this AFD because it only points to the web forum and the non-notable software article. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 12:35Z
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeme Wilson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Rosendahl
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer. Was previously tagged for speedy delete at this diff. Speedy tag removed due to claim of notability. Nonsense later added. Singer's bio does not show notability. Non-nonsense section of article is one line plus a link to the musician's homepage. MLA 12:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. Nothing in the article states what is significant about this person, nor are any references provided.
Preserve Hi! Im Maritess Garcia, a colleague of Marko Altomonte. I would like to inform you that Marko Altomonte is NOT related to the Altomonte family where it was said that they knew the location of the Romanovs. I have revised the article to really expose what he is. Please read the article now.
Delete I did a Google search but couldn't find any relevant hits. Bombycil 12:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More Murray Independent Filmmaker Association vanity. Note that all the links from his page (such as Attack of Lobsterboy) are up for deletion. Not notable, few relevant Google results, no imdb or Amazon results. StarryEyes 13:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nn book that hasn't been released yet. Crystal ballism, vanity. Ultimately stemming from Murray Independent Filmmaker Association; all that garbage is being AfD'd. StarryEyes 13:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks any context for the subject. After reading the article I still have no idea what it is trying to talk about. Normally I would tag this with CSD A1; however, based on the number of times I get overridden I assume I do not interpret A1 correctly. If anyone agrees that this is a CSD A1 please feel free to tag the article appropriately. James084 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
allmusic.com has never heard of this band or either of the albums they are supposed to have released. Google search on "funkhouser" doesn't appear to bring up anything on this band, and a search on "funkhouser uberfunk" returns 0 hits. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an ad for a Network mapping and SNMP monitoring software that is copied directly from netwhistler.spb.ru (though that page is under copyright, I figured the source is not a commercial provider, so I didn't want to speedy it for that). I don't know how notable this tool is, but in view of the circumstances this article is not encyclopedic. - squibix(talk) 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete for the obvious reasons below. Hedley 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a better article for Perth, Western Australia Ruby 14:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How to deal with BBQ gas burner problems. WP:NOT a howto guide.
The result of the debate was redirect to Donovan File. – ABCDe✉ 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I incorrectly saved the album page as The Donovan File. The album is correctly titled Donovan File. JDeMai 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 08:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little or no context. James084 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect to Neopets; if there's anything worth merging, feel free to be bold. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, neopet object Melaen 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Author of two self-published books, includes advertising linkspam. Both books are on Amazon and together have 5 customer reviews, all of which were added within two weeks or so before these page on Wikipedia, all give 5 stars, and most of them include the same advertising links - this reeks of vanity spoofs. The same Wikipedia user has also created Mythopoesis, which is an OR essay advertising the very same two books.
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split from nom for Dave Alber, M.A. as the issues seem separate. DES (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Alber, M.A.
comments after the split:
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally tagged this as ((nn-bio)), but somebody disagreed. Biography of a colonist in Van Diemen's Land, makes no assertion of importance. Delete Kusma (討論) 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense disambiguation page. Some nonsense here. I don't see the notability of this page. Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little used neologism. At best belongs in Wiktionary. Weregerbil 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero applicable ghits, no alexa ranking Ruby 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete big citation from the novel : copyvio Melaen 15:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although Runescape Community seems to be a major site, it would be a bit of a stretch to include anything more than the current contents of the stub. It also failed to be included in the "External links" section of RuneScape - and none of the sites listed in the external links section of RuneScape have their own articles. It would be more logical to debate the addition of RuneScape Community to RuneScape's external links than simply create an article that will always remain a stub. Someone42 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. RS Community is simply Zybez's forum. 2. Fansites don't get their own articles. It would be a different story if there was an article called RuneScape Fansites (which won't be created by me because J.J.Sagnella and friends would pounce on me) 3. This article has no content whatsoever. Dtm142 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete world of warcraft guild, unencyclopedic. Melaen 15:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN vanity. Machinima production group. Google gives 77 results, mostly unrelated. Article created by a group member. I'm getting sick of this crap. Existence does not equate notability. Drat (Talk) 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. I'm closing this early per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closings because it's clear that there is a consensus (I count 17 Keep, 4 Delete) to keep. Moreover, it's seems inconceivable to me that the tide could change so drastically that a consensus in the other direction could possibly evolve. On top of all that, the debate has turned into a nasty brawl, which is never a good thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork, undefined term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern (talk • contribs)
Delete. Just an attempt my Madge to delete by merger all my vaccine critic pages into one dog's dinner he created to push his POV. He has kept out one of my main assertions, for example. A vaccinator creating an anti-vaccine page, says it all. And a big cheek considering this was my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_critics Click on that. john 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you The Invisible Anon(86.10.231.219) delete two opponent's votes, see here. Thanks CDN99 for spotting this. I re-post both votes below:
I make that 15:3 and rising for keeping it. While I suspect that some participants would like to spend as much time on this rather than writing the article as possible, do we actually need more? Can we call this to a conclusion, and get on with refactoring it, now, please? Midgley 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is advertisement. The spam link has been removed on other pages, for example on Jean Baudrillard in 2003. Lapaz 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was cleanup and merge; I have no idea how to do this, so I'll just slap some templates on the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article for deletion since it has a thesis and a theme (misconceptions about the shi'a). Essentially, it is a POV. I don't agree or disagree with it, I just don't see any reason for it to be it's own article. Hence I belive it should be merged into the shi'a article.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an article and serves no real purpose; I've put a link to wikibooks:Piano in the Piano entry. FunnyYetTasty 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entry (Two Stars for Peace solution) is highly surrealistic. Since its creation in November 2004, it has been edited twice, to categorize it. It could remain here as an ironic joke or something - but maybe i don't really feel like laughing right now. What about you? Isn't there an alternate Wikiproject about hoaxes and things? Or should we simply let it there, and categorize in Category:Hoaxes? I also though that the US already had a 51st state, and didn't need anymore. Lapaz 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that if this seems harmless enough, it does takes place in the Category:Middle East peace efforts, which is already - but not enough - quite large. Do we really need to insert hoaxes in it? Lapaz
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This site doesn't seem very notable. ComputerJoe 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect; I see nothing worth merging, but anyone who knows better is free to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this article is only about a very-minor significance planet in Futurama, it got blown up in 10 minutes on the fourth episode only to be forgotten the rest of the show. There's no reason for this page to exist on Wikipedia, only a mention in the Futurama article(s) is necessary. Mike 05:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete dicdef, neologism Melaen 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete neologism. Melaen 15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge/redirect as per MNewnham. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifications for an engine but no other context. James084 15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete original research tag since november. Melaen 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to speedy for CSD A3, with all of the external links, but the article itself seemed to long to speedy under CSD A3. Google search shows a small handful of results. ^demon 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete dicdef. Melaen 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN machinima production group. Drat (Talk) 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as empty (but a redirect would be OK if needs be) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article as written does not meet WP:WEB. No outside evidence of notability is cited in the article at all. Alexa rank is 4,319,708, as per this query. Only 87 unique google hits (and only 511 total google hits), and I saw none that looked to be from "major media". Delete unless reliable sources are cited to establish notablity and are incorporated into the article. DES (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by RexNL as an attack page. - Bobet 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reference found, un notable Melaen 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hoax or mild attack. No Google hits at all on Talvinderjit Kainth and none relevant on "Tony Kenneth". Odd for a "famous" author. Nothing on the books either. Delete hoaxy non-famousness. Tonywalton | Talk 16:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete under G4. --BorgQueen 16:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main article at Male bikini-wearing was AfD'd Ruby 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was a case of mistaken name, and the page Tony White has been created to fix this Deville 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Not many votes, but those who explicitly voted, voted delete. Deathphoenix 16:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an actual genre of music, it is just a derogatory phrase used to describe Glam metal, which is already mentioned in said Glam metal article - Deathrocker 07:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no Butt Rock or Glam Metal category when searching for music at any reputible record store. Deathrocker is expressing distain for the term based on personal bias. Butt Rock is a commonly used phrase in Western Culture. Many word usages are derivitives of slang (ie; Glam Metal) and have a current cultural meaning and value. If we are going to completely delete Butt Rock from Wikipedia then we must follow through with that line of thinking and delete all such references to terms not commonly recognized by the recording/music industry (including Glam Metal). Revisions to such articles where necissary (and to eliminate bias) would be a prudent course. It seams that the spirit and beauty of Wikipedia is the ability to discover truth, not to be revisionist historians. Thanks for your time (operator). --69.62.131.222 16:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we are going to eliminate terms based on derogatory nature we should review Dirty Sanchez. Sincerely, --Radioflyr 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... Wikipedia seems like a great place for both of these definitions to exist. It would seem to me that some one doesn't "like" the term "Butt Rock", even though it is a commonly used term, and would seek to eliminate it. I don't like the term "middle class", but that doesn't stop it from being used and being a Wikipedia definition.
It is already included in the Glam Metal article, its not the fact that it is a derogatory phrase I have no problem at all with that, its the point that it isn't an actual genre of music as it is portrayed to be in the article, as mentioned it is written into the glam metal article (Along with other derogatory terms like "Hair metal" and "poodle rock"). - Deathrocker 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here's what you're not hearing me say (type); Glam Metal is metal music and Butt Rock is not a synonym for Glam Metal. People refer to many bands who are NOT metal music as Butt Rock even though many bands that ARE Butt Rock are also Glam Metal: Glam Metal has to be "metal", Butt Rock does NOT have to be metal. Nelson, Kiss, Led Zepplain and Night Ranger are just a few example s of bands that are NOT metal but ARE Butt Rock (see how creatively they avoid the term "Butt Metal""). I'm okay with merging the definition, but let's merge it with something that makes logical sense! Otherwise adapt your adendum to Glam Metal and let's move on with our lives. Moderator: I'm confident that both Deathrocker and I appreciate your time, thanks! --Radioflyr 06:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then show reliable links where bands such as KISS (Who have made Glam metal albums during the 80s and early 90s anyway), Led Zepplin (Who helped bring about metal), etc are considered as "Butt rock", aswell as butt rock being an actual genre.
The bands this article pertains to; Nelson, Poison, Warrant, Winger, Slaughter, BulletBoys, Danger Kitty (Now Metal Skool; a Glam metal parody band) are all considered to be part of "Glam Metal"... metal itself is a subgenre of hard rock anyway. You seem to be taking the extreme metal bands as the blueprint of what "metal" is about, when that isn't the case. - Deathrocker 07:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links: Butt Rock
http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2001/05/15/tesla/?sid=1030649
http://www.seattleweekly.com/music/0032/two-reighley.php
Classes of "Metal"
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/2786/genres2.html
- (unsigned comment by 66.60.132.218)
1st is a random user complied list on Amazon, it isn't an offical list by the site. 2nd looks like another random blog 3rd has nothing to do with any of the bands mentioned in this article. 4th is a personal geocities site.
Where are reliable links from actual music media or related sources claiming this to be an actual genre? - Deathrocker 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metal is a subcategory of Rock, therefor Rock cannot again be a subcategory of Metal (Rock/Metal/Rock?!). KFC's are a type of fast-tfood chain however not all fast food-chains are KFC's. Nelson is NOT Metal and neither is Bachman-Turner Overdrive. I would agree with you, deathrocker, that the links above are all personal opinnion however, Butt Rock is a word defined by its usage much like Glam Metal and Dirty Sanchez. Unoffical sources act to high-lite the fact that the word is commonly used by many people to include more than just Glam Metal. We should use Wikipedia to document how a new term is actually used in the English language, not to confine people to a meaning or definition that does not represent the broad usage of the word. If sources from a recording industry are what validates a term or genre then again we must remove Glam Metal from Wikipedia. I am not arguing that this is a genre, but a term in pop culture much like Glam Metal (no record producer in their right mind would ever use either to term to sell their records).
--Radioflyr 06:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted on the assertion that it isn't a valid genre. It is still a term that is used to describe some bands or types of music. Maybe a statement that it isn't a genre would be in order, but having a Wikipedia article (read accurate) is very important for the term, IMHO. --Donander 06:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
self-referential, neologism coined today apparently, of dubious notability beyond our borders Derex 16:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more listcruft, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of four, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of six, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of seven. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn local club Adam (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert that it meets criteria of notability on WP:WEB Bill 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but quotes San Saba 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, non-notable bio. Jonathunder 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement not an encyclopedia article Nv8200p talk 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete with zero prejudice against recreation with sources. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
new film genre? original research! Melaen 18:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a month out of date. The only edit since 6th January has been a spelling correction. If the article is to be brought up to date it will have to be rewritten anyway. BigBlueFish 18:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for deletion to get a sense of the community's thoughts on this. Colby 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely minor Harry Potter character (one-sentence mention, no relevance to plot) who certainly doesn't deserve an article. I suggest a redirect to Stephen Poliakoff (British film director). (nomination by Laur 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by MPF as offensive nonsense/nonnotable brag page. - Bobet 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nonsense
The result of the debate was speedy delete, not notable. Thue | talk 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
person is not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username132 (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy delete for being in gross violation of WP:NOT. howcheng {chat} 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting sign-up sheet. No encyclopedic content. Weregerbil 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be copyrighted material (who ever pasted in left the Copyright label on the bottom). When I searched Google for this person I could find absolutely no reference to this person outside of the Wikipedia article. James084 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an ad. Thue | talk 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems like it is a nn local company Adam (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merged and now redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can easily be merged with the Simtropolis main page along with the The_Sim_City_Journal_Union page. Compromise 19:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbit Balls MNewnham 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant Advertising Bletch 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete based on unanimous agreement so far and author's admission that it was a "test" rather than a real article. --Michael Snow 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page was created today, simply saying that he "is a figure in American Republican Party politics." Well, I guess that's an assertion of notability. I did a quick search to determine what kind of a figure he is, and the present article is the result. If it gets deleted, you can get rid of the picture too. --Michael Snow 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very non notable. Google search resulted in two unrelated results. Esprit15d 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Aaron 18:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, should be moved to Comixpedia, 800ish google hits, no alexa ranking, not found in this list, started in 2005, there are thousands of webcomics out there, They'll need their own CSD guidelines soon. Obli (Talk) 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Obli (Talk) 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a misspelled version of Henry Wager Halleck Hal Jespersen 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. First person references. Esprit15d 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article with no content other than a link to another organization. Existence of Subject Non verifiable, (probably fictitious) Ragib 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is pure vanity to promote an unknown song writer and band. The content of the article was mostly added by an anon. user and another user with few edits [42] has been promoting this band on Wikipedia as well. A google search for "Adam Woeger" brings up 843 including personal websites, internet chat, newsgroups, and yahoo profiles. This is an non-notable person and should be deleted created for vanity. As the article says, Adam is considered to be one of the earliest people to use the Internet as an evangelism tool. Wikipedia isn't a personal promotional tool. His band Prays is now also listed for deletion because the same person who added information to Woeger created and was the only one to add information to the band related article. Also delete the redirect page. Arbustoo 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Merge some of the detail into Prays and delete. Well-researched nomination. Adrian Lamo · 21:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Delete as prayscruft. Adrian Lamo · 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate vanispamcruft, written by founder of company MNewnham 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the notability. Unlike Sealand, it has no territory. Unlike Dominion of Melchizedek there seems to be no controversy or fraud allegations. 1030 Google hits. Seems to me to be a big boy's version of something made up in school. Delete as non notable. kingboyk 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to delete this article, since there's really nothing go on with, outside of Kojima mentioning his plans to make a new MGS game for PSP in an interview. There's no official press release or anything that the game is actually coming for real. Jonny2x4 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. No point in continuing this mess.
Original research. --Carnildo 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Move to project space. Self-ref, not suitable for article space. Adrian Lamo · 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged as db-bio, but notability is asserted so bringing it to AfD instead. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CR Pendleton has been nominated 3 times by the Gospel Music Association for works and collaborations with Gotee/EMI records recording artist. Two of the Nominations were for writing and one for co-production. see www.gmamusicawards.com
Claims notability as producer, with 4 top 10 songs, but I suspect this is in some christian music chart. Most notable work indicated on producers own site is incidental music for 'Pimp My Ride', has own myspace page MNewnham 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by one person [45] who only edits articles related to the band and who most likely is in the band. The same editor was the author of the band members and Prays albums wikipedia pages also up for deletion. As stated on the "singer's" page (Adam Woeger-- up for deletion), he is using the internet as a promotional tool. Well, it looks as if Wikipedia is a part of it. A google search of "Adam Woeger" brings up less than 900 hits (including internet newsgroups and chatting). The other band member Paul Guffey (up for deletion) is even less notable. The page forks to promote individual albums In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler (all up for deletion). Every single edit that adds information is the same person on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that person. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays) brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete spanish dicdef. Melaen 22:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete --TimPope 09:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball, the article says, "It is hoped this religion will be as popular as the famed Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn, but only time will tell" Ruby 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a proposed channel that doesn't exist yet. -- 9cds(talk) 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete neologism Melaen 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged for speedy deleiton, but notability is asserted. Australian celebrity gossip columnist. You decide, no vote. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertising for a non-notable website, & only one user has edited it. Latinata 22:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged as nn speedy, but notability is asserted. Bringing to AfD instead. Seems to be unreferenced. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unknown band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[46]] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this is a prank. The purported websites have been registered by somebody else in the US, not the UK. I can't find any references by searching for "prince amarjit singh" or "ringos charity" or [47]. The article was created as a solo edit by the account and then vandalized or embellished as part of the prank by the known and repeatedly blocked vandal IP 194.154.22.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony kenneth item above. Hu 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as db-bio, but notability is asserted. Bringing to AfD instead. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[48] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[49] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge and redirect per Carie. Johnleemk | Talk 13:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as nn-bio but this person is clearly of massive importanc,e, having almost got into a "reality" show. And she was rude to the Simon Cowell clone, so clearly not all bad. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like no consensus... CrazyC83 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[50] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[51] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by RexNL per the rarely-invoked CSD:A2 (article in a foreign language that already exists on another language's Wikipedia. Stifle 01:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Complete garbage insulting university freshmen. And it's written in portuguese. Just delete it... --Mahound 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[52] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[53] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dead Skin Mask HAS:
from "notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia" (your rules)
JtravisJtravis 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tribute band with no assertion of notability. Which might be a mistake, or might reflect a lack of notability... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Member of a tribute band. Are individual members of tribute bands likely to meet WP:NMG? I don't think so. Tagged as nn-bio but it kind of asserts notability so you judge. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged as db-bio, but notability is asserted. Apparently he was once the fourth-best under-14 tennis player in "the nation" (presumably USA, but not stated). Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[55] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Includes other unnotable/local bands Elisha's Request and Cynthia Paap, also up for deletion. Arbustoo 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. keepsleeping slack off! 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article of unnotable band. The user who created the page only edits unnotable bands that he is connected with[56]. A quick google search of "Elisha's Request" brings up only 755, which includes many unrelated organizations bearing the same name. The Worship sampler they are on is also up for deletion due to non-notablity, which was created by the same user as this and related pages. Wikipedia is not here to promote unknown acts. Delete redirect page Elishas Request as well. Arbustoo 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged for speedy but no obvious category. It looks like a non-notable garage band site, but I'm kind of guessing here since I don't know what "choons" is. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Larsinio as nn-bio. I wasn't sure about the "Raabe Prize for Sacred Composition" so I'm bringing it here instead. howcheng {chat} 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable musician. A google search of "Cynthia Paap" brings up 8 hits, none of which contain any information about a musician. The article was written by the same user who is in the Prays band (also up for deletion), which is connected to the Worship sampler (up for deletion) that she is on[57]. This is vanity and has no value for wikipedia. Arbustoo 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable. If he becomes notable, every other pastor is as well. Opes 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not encyclopedic. Not every doctor in the world needs to be in an encyclopedia Opes 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: Article was nominated for deletion in 2004 with no concensus reached]. Not a real nation, and in essence an internet club. I contend that WP:WEB should apply. 752 or 596 Google hits. 35 posts on official forum. Seems to me to be a big boys' version of something made up in school. Delete kingboyk 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as nn-bio, but notability asserted, so bringing to AfD instead. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a vanity page for an unpublished (and generally, that should mean not notable) novella written by Christopher Levy (User:BigGuy219). This book could not be found on Amazon.com as a published work, and the article appears to have been created and largely edited by one anonymous IP. The writer has also done some edits on the page. Might be a great novel, mind you, but if everyone published a summary of their unpublished Great American (or Russian, or British or what have you) Novel, Wikipedia would be filled to the brim.
Additionally, a page called "doughboys" would more appropriately be used as a explanation of the WWI term for soldiers. The 1930 Buster Keaton film is also in wide circulation. Westwinds 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like possible pseudoscience. Unverified, and no pages link here. Delete. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
much better text on main Sex in the City page Rakerman 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, especially now Prince Leonard is trolled in Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A micronation. Which means: vanity, or a single-person political protest (usually about tax). Maybe one of the more notable ones, maybe not: a lot of it looks rather spurious to me. Anyway, let's have a review. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alleged micronation but the site barely Googles (12 hits) and has zero Alexa, the name itself gets around 120 unique Googles not al of which are obviusly relevant. I call cruft. Kept here. I'm seriously unconvinced. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.someonenotfamous Sunday Feb 5,2006
The result was Delete Mhiji 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football team ComputerJoe 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]