< March 18 | > |
---|
The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I loved this show dearly, having watched every episode aired on the SciFi Channel in the U.S. I even have autographed pictures of two major cast members, Patricia Zentilli and Eva Habermann. In spite of all this, I must say that this article is unencyclopedic fancruft and listcruft and needs to go. I can't think of a single reason to save it, and the existing systemic bias towards science fiction fandom means that we should hold articles on science fiction topics to a very high standard. Brian G. Crawford 00:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was tagged with ((orfud)). — Rebelguys2 talk 17:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a duplicate. All of it. Vae 00:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. DS 16:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about non-notable company. Original contributor (perhaps the company itself) contested prod and attempted to rewrite the article to be less advert-like, which however does not make the company notable. Henning Makholm 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's really useful, but WP:NOT a how-to guide. Would Wikibooks want this? Mithent 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Does not fit in with The Sims 2. Anyone who can find a better place to merge, feel free to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been fully merged with the Sims 2—neither was the redirect to avoid people reading it or re-creating it. But, anyway, the main reason is really because WP is not a how-to. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wiki note a gamefaq..agree KsprayDad 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per the original VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2); that was 5 votes to merge, 4 to keep). Melissa Della 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Legacy challenge concept is extremely popular. Check the [2 Website] and other popular Sims websites to see how many people are doing this. Even if they aren't following the rules the legacy concept of following many generations of Sims is very popular. That said, the topic does need to be cleaned up to more about what Legacies are as opposed to how to play one properly. --Ryuukuro 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article barely touched for some time, nothing was there except original research and rampant speculation. I'm not sure there ever could be much content here except criticism of Christian sexual ethics which belong in other articles. -- Jbamb 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert. Nothing links here. Delete? Sammysam 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Xaosflux. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to state notablity, 4 google hit [2]. With Canadian spelling (centre) a mighty 8 [3] Eivindt@c 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, prod removed Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep per Bobby. JoshuaZ 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC) rename and redirect per below. JoshuaZ 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just some non-notable pizza eating contest. Gets 501 Google hits [6] A Clown in the Dark 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy WP:CSD A8: copyvio. mikka (t) 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio, appears to be political campaign piece for upcoming FIDE election. Phr 02:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable (POV) only 47 googles. Some conspiracy theory term. RJFJR 02:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del nonnotable attempt to introduce a buzzword, pushed mainly by http://www.siliconeholocaust.org. mikka (t) 02:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirected to his daddy. DS 17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(({text))} Rklawton 03:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC) as per CalJWRklawton 06:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Already mentioned on father's page. JoshuaZ 03:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Abstaining for now per CalJW. JoshuaZ 05:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - this one-liner's subject is non-notable. I don't see the point of naming every Indian MLA's bungalow. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Bobby1011 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Luigi30. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a neologism that isn't notable. Bobby1011 04:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 04:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable (or worse) Rklawton 04:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was already redirected --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN neologism. Article makes little sense.the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 04:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) WITHDRAWN the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List is entirely speculative as the title and the introduction blatantly say. As speculation there is no way to support any of this with facts and speculation does not have a place on Wikipedia. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this in any way better than adding the speculation to the notable person's biography? I can see that medical conditions of famous individuals are a proper filed of historic study (did Napoleon have severe piles, thus arriving at Waterloo shorter of sleep than Wellington, and less mobile?) but I can't see tha that is assisted by the historian having a list of people with piles, running his finger down it and picking out Napoleon to consider biographising. Is it a reflection of limitations in the search facilities available - a way of doing a search for Cat:people word:autis* ? Weak delete, or merge to talk page of main article on the condition. Midgley 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, this page can aspire to be original research! Absolute garbage, would love to see it gone. Ben-w 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was deleted. DS 17:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. PROD removed by article creator. The content of the article changed from basketball player to pingpong player in various incarnations of the article, leading to the hoax conclusion. Article's creator has created several other dubious articles. Joyous | Talk 04:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ready Aim Fire! 05:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was gone. DS 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another probable hoax, by the creator of Zhenteng Li. PROD tag removed, so I'm bringing to AfD. Joyous | Talk 05:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article for a non-notable book. --Dell Adams 05:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding the copyvio tag, the subject is a non-notable politican; the page is also likely autobio/vanity, inasmuch as its the only page the editor has edited or created in two-plus years. Joe 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy kept as nomination withdrawn. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, reads like a resume. Ckessler 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Keep rewritten article, notability proven. (changed vote) Ckessler 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable krav maga instructor. Ckessler 05:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable krav maga instructor. Ckessler 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly duplicates Hisar, India. Not a merge because there's no new info. Not a redirect because Hisarya, India is neither a city nor a nickname, and Hisarya, Bulgaria is unrelated. See Talk:Hisar, India Art LaPella 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which "google" you searched, but I found quite a lot on google.com. I know the alt.fan.adamallard news group has been around for at least 10 years because it was one of the first to be found way back in the archie and veronica days. I don't know much about the "musician" part but I did find something on purevolume.com/adamallard.
I know about him from a technology perspective since that I my field. He was one of the first people to use Java in a large-scale public site... he created the original Pepsi.com in all-Java in 1995. I also know the Plenium company because of the Wired article that Chris Oakes wrote in 1997 about their company and the netdesk thingy.
Just clicking around on other people in wikipedia, its easy for me to find many other people in the main collection that appear to have done much less.
Strong whiff of vanity about this. Googling doesn't unearth much evidence of his notability as a musician or "technologist", and I'm not at all clear what our notability standards for the "visionaries" is. Alai 05:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contested prod. Webcomic with no alexa rating and no evidence of size of audience. Only one independent Ghit--Porturology 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is linked to from Subeta. I have my doubts about that page too, but Subeta has a number of Google links, and appearantly some following. This list, though, is not even a list, and I cannot see its purpose. Delete, or possibly merge with Subeta (although I doubt it). Egil 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and self-admittedly fringe conspiracy theory about the goings-on in an online game. Very broadly non-encyclopaedic, this. WP:NOT, WP:OR apply. Contested PROD.Sandstein 06:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet photomanipulation artist, apparently popular online, but no independent sources or apparent impact in the real world, so delete. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not an actual institute, just a building at an university. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all the buildings in the world. PROD contested. Sandstein 06:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts talk 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book, Amazon rank 1,657,640 (or 2,319,877 for paperback). Was de-prodded for the reason of being a published book. However, WP:NOT a catalogue of all the books in the world. Merge and redirect to the author, Frater Achad (whose notability is dubious himself, IMHO). Sandstein 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, nomination retracted per Perfecto below. Sandstein 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Xezbeth. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deproded. Seems to be a long article about someones nickname for his significant other. Henrik 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real concept. 5 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - google search returns no results. Wickethewok 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as non-notable band Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promoting band Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contested PROD, nn band. Wickethewok 08:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply a definition of an inside joke Wickethewok 08:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well certainly it's not common, but that's why people come to Wikipedia and not Dictionary.com. It is a legitemate slang term I've heard numerous times at Chapman HS. Proteus9k 12:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd speedy this myself, but I'm obviously biased. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Delete.--Eloquence* 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result : Speedy delete as nn-bio JoJan 12:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article violates an order of the Youth Court of Auckland, New Zealand, forbidding the offender's name or details of this case to be published until May 2006. Article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willnz (talk • contribs)
*Keep Part of newsworthy events and thus passes WP:BIO and we do not kowtow to New Zealand. kotepho 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of versions of piece of software is not encyclopaedic. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic style, seems to be original research. It's possible it could blossom into a proper article, but I have my doubts. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prod deleted without reason,Web site with alexa rating> 2000000. Claims 1000 members. Reads like a vanity piece--Porturology 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not updated in two years.. insufficient context - nobody seems to care about it anyway - we can do without this article Werdna648T/C\@ 11:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO. He has filed a patent application for a storyline, but a patent is not granted yet. Anybody can file a patent application. This is not recognized as exceptional and this does not make the applicant notable, even if the invention described in the application is unusual. (This may be reconsidered if the patent is granted or if wide publicity is made in the literature about this type of applications for whatever reason). A report in one blog is not enough to make it notable. Edcolins 12:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio. Fetofs Hello! 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only a definition of a slang term. Could be merged with List of sexual slurs. Schzmo 13:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable band. Just zis Guy you know? 13:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band that provides no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. Previous ((prod)) was removed by article creator. --Allen3 talk 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Most people voting "keep" also wanted a move to Naked party, so it has been done. -- King of Hearts talk 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as this article was listed under Category:Articles lacking sources, I tried looking up sources. However, too many of the results either were galleries of naked parties or having to do with the 1997 movie. Basically put, there are too little viable sources for such a topic matter. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blog/website for which I have not been able to find much reference — but maybe someone else will know better ? Already tagged ((context)), orphan. Schutz 14:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article has been blanked because of copyright problems; please see the page's history (in particular this version) for the version relevant to this AfD discussion. Schutz 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The copyright Issue, Iwrote the article and you have my full permission to use it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.182.135 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 March 2006
The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rescued from speedy, sent here for advisory opinion. Stated to be first openly gay Texas state legislator. This makes him brave I guess, but does it make him notable? Eventually we will have 50 first-gay-state-legislators (which might be OK). Also stated to have done some local activism. Unfortunately article is sparse on references. Herostratus 14:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a "how to" type article, giving advice on how to run a small business. I would have just put a cleanup tag on it, but it's so bad, I'm not convinced it can be salvaged. The discussion page has evidence of earlier attempts that have failed -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Probably borderline to speedy deletion. Schutz 14:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
I found it informative as a fan of Basically Brians columns. —This unsigned comment was added by 194.165.183.223 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 March 2006.
Over 50,000 members of his fan club, I think he's notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.171.181 (talk • contribs)
Capitalistroadster 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete, he's actually very popular in his locality in Dublin, a bit of a cult hero— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.182.135 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 March 2006
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page about a fictional baby who only appeared in one or two episodes. Not notable enough for Wikipedia.Philip Stevens 15:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No claim to notability or importance. Edcolins 15:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Xaosflux. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Only 5 Google hits. Schzmo 15:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Web site. No claim to notability or importance. Probably promotional. Edcolins 15:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brand. No claim to notability or importance. The fact that the product has been patented is not enough to be notable. Edcolins 15:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional. Non-notable company. Edcolins 15:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TV branding minutae. I'm a broadcasting nut, but this just doesn't seem encyclopedic. Any branding changes can go on the individual station pages. Kirjtc2 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 19:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Little information. Nothing overly important enough about this radio/TV tower to necessitate its own encyclopedia entry. --Zpb52 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please delete this page, because it had been a victim of vandalism many times in recent days. The page is about a minor band in Bangladesh, however i am not to judge if it's deserving of it's own spot in Wikipedia. Abid Ahmed 14:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Abid Ahmed[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion removed. Arguements over notability. Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some obscure word that was mentioned on a TV show, which I have never yet heard used in common usage. -- 9cds(talk) 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adverts for non-notable ISP. Henning Makholm 16:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Placed on prod as an advertisement, then the creator, Featheredtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removed it. Next, I placed it back on prod without checking history to see it had been pulled. But now I have, so here we are. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable blog website RJFJR 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 21:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't seem notable to me Where (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the award he has received is sufficiently important to be noteworthy - just about every research area has awards somewhere or other, so winning an award that possibly nobody outside the industry will have heard of isn't a conclusive claim to notability to me. Searching "Pharmaceutical Care Awards" only gets 200 odd hits, which suggests to me the winners aren't exactly gaining wider fame. Average Earthman 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - this is a non-notable, unsubstantiated subject. Rama's Arrow 18:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was hard as I tried, I didn't find any differences between the articles, so...redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a duplicate of Šar mountain, created for the purpose of vandalism. For more info, compare [22] and [23] Dijxtra 19:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Less than 400 google hits there is nothing intinsacly notible about tripod sites.Geni 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List is entirely speculative as the title and the introduction blatantly say. As speculation there is no way to support any of this with facts and speculation does not have a place on Wikipedia. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly irrelevant, no citations, no explanation of importance, etc. Mistamagic28 20:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Completely Non-Noteable high school local quiz show. Broadcast on a nn local network. Obscure topic of little interest to anyone. Unencyclopedic. pm_shef 20:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Tagged for speedy as nonsense, but isn't patent nonsense. It is, howerver, a massive collection of redlinks none of which should be going blue any time soon. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable photographer. The most the article appears to claim for him is that he had one local show of several photographs (not a very difficult accomplishment). Most of it appears to be vain puffery ("...it immediately generated a local buzz about the artists return to the scene..."). This has already been speedied twice as a non-notable bio (including once by myself), but I'm listing it here for wider consideration and a more definite resolution. Postdlf 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just so happened to stumble across this article accidentally and, having never seen an entry marked for deletion decided to speak my piece. While you may call this “vain puffery” I pose this question to you. Who has a life pathetic enough to waste time ripping down an aspiring artist? In all seriousness, I believe it would be highly beneficial if you walked outside, experienced the beauty away from your computer screen and then (dare I say?) have physical contact with another being. While I do chide, I am serious in saying that this young Andrei does seem to have the keen eye needed for successful life photography. You, being a person who embracing electronic information can surely understand the need for promotion and how the Internet can be a useful tool in aiding a career of any sort. I’m sure you have your uses for the web as well, such as uploading pictures of the children you molest or masturbating to bestiality movies. I’m sorry to be so coarse, however why have you taken it upon yourself to attempt to stifle the next generation of American artist? I see you as a vile being, not worthy of critiquing anything except for the child porn, which I am almost certain you produce. Good day sir, I have nothing more to say to someone with such a scatological psyche. —This unsigned comment was added by JFreshman (talk • contribs) .
Well I think this isn’t a discussion as much as a charade, a smoke and dagger case against an innocent man. Yes a man, who simply wants to show his artistic side, is it so hard to accept, does it hurt you to see this Man have even the tiniest amount of happiness? What is so horrible about your life that you must constantly attack outwards at others in order to make yourself look and feel better? This is not China no matter how much you might want it to be. Google does not limit the searches of these free people of the United States of America. If you want to oppress personal expression, freedom of speech, and creativity than perhaps you should consider moving to China, they are quite proficient at that. I for one plan on staying right here in the good ol’ US of A where freedom reigns no matter how many countries we have to bomb to keep it that way. SO to you neigh sayers, trash talkers, hoodlums, I say this, with the freest of speech and truest love for our fair country, FUCK YOU, and FUCK YOU COMMI WAYS… —This unsigned comment was added by 129.194.8.73 (talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A well thought out, but utterly OR-based article. Wikipedia is not the place for this; hopefully it will find a nice home elsewhere. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy as empty, but not empty. It is, however, plainly vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-noteable, seemingly a vanity article. Google search turns up about 100 hits, most of which are MySpace pages, no linking pages, doesn't deserve an article. pm_shef 20:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was gone. DS 21:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy as spam, but spam is not a speedy criterion, however accurate that might be in this case (and it is absolutely spot-on). No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Closing Admin: Don't forget the logo. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a vanity page; provides little to no information about an unknown product.
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. "Ais asylum is a web forum created by a student of the Asian International School. The users are limited to the higher classes of the school, and number to 15 to 30 as time varies" No indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:WEB. Delete NickelShoe (Talk) 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete If the website subsequently becomes notable then the article can be rewritten to reflect this. (aeropagitica) 22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, 280 google hits for "fredthemonkey.com", no Alexa rating. Kuzaar 13:15, 14 March 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)) . |
Keep it! you can't just get rid of something because you think it's "not-notable." as an encyclopedia you are supposed to be nutral and to label something like that is obviously giving it a bias. this article should be kept, and who do you think you are to decide whether or not something is notable anyway? —This unsigned comment was added by Beatrixcastle (talk • contribs) .
TOADFAN5 aka FRED THE MONKEY FANATIC 5 —This unsigned comment was added by Toadfan5 (talk • contribs) .
Keep! Please don't delete! It's my favorite site in the world and I don't know what I'd do without it! —This unsigned comment was added by 69.171.32.231 (talk • contribs) .
Delete-non-notable cartoon ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is certainly an interesting idea for an international holiday. I'm not sure it has asserted enough notability however, so I have brought it here for discussion. No vote. Grandmasterka 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable airline pilot. Delete. DMG413 21:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- King of Hearts talk 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ABSOLUTE keep, there is not even any question. Infact I demand IMMEDIATE removal of the AfD!Some guy from tennessee 21:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Speedy deletion. — TheKMantalk 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Viva la spam, created by TJ White himself as a joke, the user has subsequently banned, and this remained lanquishing in the new articles category, speedly deletion here. PS - deletes make my head hurt Highway 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infinite keep, go to hell if you think otherwise.Some guy from tennessee 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Album as yet unreleased. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Originally placed PROD tag but that was removed. Ifnord 21:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per badlydrawnjeff. The 2-album standard is sufficient, but not necessary, for notability. Monicasdude 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a common trade of some players, Merge to somewhere, if not Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 21:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, non-encylopediodic design ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability of mall ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made by a new user, they've received the welcome, but this is still here. I really don't have a clue here... Really vague, and indescript. Highway 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article does not assert why this mall is notable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 08:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fraudster, presumedly (he is still on trial) with minor notoriety. Not worth an encyclopedia article as per WP:BIO. Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete and userfy. I'm not sure if it was a mistaken userpage because the article title doesn't match the username exactly, but I couldn't find much of a claim to notability here. Author claims to be a founder of some Pagan traditions but didn't explain their importance, and admitted in a few places that her groups had memberships of only about 6 to 25 people. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, inasmuch as the "article" appears to be a bio for a new editor Joe 22:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: withdrawn by nominator.
This possibly should have been nominated along with Popaganda!!!. The band has released only one major label album with no other assertion of notablility. I'm also nominating Decadence (album) with this article. Brian G. Crawford 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was move. W.marsh 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anon editor placed the AfD tag on this page and moved the link to the deletion page for 19 March but failed actually to create this page. I am not voting as to the propriety of deletion (although I may do so below), but am simply listing the article in order that the red link should disappear from the deletion page. Joe 22:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Education: school clubs are not notable. Article claims to count "prominent attornies, teachers, doctors and public officials" among its ex-members, but fails to name any. htonl 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band and person. Possibly a vanity page. Only 3 pages link to this page. 1 is Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and the other 2 are words that may have be mistakenly linked to this article, which has nothing to do with the subject in the article. Ibn Abihi 22:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph says it all: "a relatively new term" found on "web pages including blogs, chat forums and other informational resources". I.e., a neologism that was even invented on a web forum (see this old version) and is also unsourced. It seems to me that a controversial notion such as pathologising religion would need a lot more mainstream and professional usage, and sources, before becoming encyclopaedic. Sandstein 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that this page explains the term in a clear manner, and is necesary as the only reference that I have been able to find on the term. Besides, I don't see biblical terms being atacked just because they are predominently used by the mentally ill. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.189.169 (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was: listed on WP:TFD instead. — sjorford (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The senselessts template in the world. Olliminatore 23:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Academic Challenger. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insofar as IMDB finds neither the actor nor the films in which he is said to have acted; non-notable (likely vanity) bio and, in any case, largely nonsensical Joe 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 08:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A rdio station, which is normally a keep, but what they don't make clear is that RSL means "restricted service license" [29] which means a short-term or temporary license. So this is a student-run station which was on air for a very brief period, and Flava has now reverted to being a regional college webcast while 209radio is still awaiting a longer-term license. Creator was Matthew W (talk · contribs), which is probably The Station Manager and Head of Music was Matthew Webb - now working alongside 209radio. So it's quite probably vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary entry, and possibly neologism Booyabazooka 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DarknessProductionsInc 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no activity with the page DarknessProductionsInc 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT a crystal ball. Was ((prod)), but notice was removed. htonl 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game invented in 2000, apparently. Google returns 0 hits. Article has previously been nominated for speedy delete and prod, both times the original editor removed the tags. If evidence of notability can be provided I'll withdraw the AfD nomination, but so far none has. Gwernol 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tankeray 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legit article about a legit game. I spent many of my boyhood hours engaging in this good, wholesome activity. Fun for everyone! Maybe instead of complaining and trying to get it deleted, you all should try playing it and stop being negative nancies.
This is a great game. You should at least try playing before you discount it. A fantastic way to have fun indoors with a larger group of people than a normal game of pool can handle. Keep 03:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either a spoof or, at best, an insignificant belief system (as the article itelf admits). Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of non-notability of subject (Helf is said to be best known for his role in the film Busy Season, but the relevant Google search returns zero hits; a general Googling of the bio's subject returns, on the first few pages, no relevant responses, and the IMDB entry is for a different individual. Joe 23:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Student a capella group with constantly fluctating membership. It has released several self produced albums but doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC to me. --Martyman-(talk) 08:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple other student a cappella groups have had wikipedia entries for lengthy amounts of time without this issue. (ie. University of Pennsylvania's Penn Masala, Tufts' Beelzebubs, Brown's Brown Derbies, Cornell's Hangovers etc) Look at the "list of collegiate a cappella groups" site and see there are many links to individual pages. There doesn't seem to be an issue with these groups, yet this criticism would apply equally to all of them as well. Let's be consistent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.194.144 (talk • contribs) .
What are they being marked for? I don't see what violation they are making that other college a cappella group entries are not. They create music, which qualifies them as a music group. Noutbounde 18:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the group has won national recognition. The ICCAs is one of the two biggest a cappella contests in the country (the other being BOCA). Winning recognition in this contest is a significant accomplishment, especially for so young a group. The group is also notable in that it has performed in many states, and with many of the nation's best a cappella groups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annelisep (talk • contribs) .
Keep. Low-grade notable, like many such groups at major universities. Monicasdude 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is non-encyclopedic and rather dumb. discospinster 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate wasgone. DS 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography (likely a hoax/facetious entry). Joe 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is irrelevant, it's about some person's kid.. Dwayne Kirkwood 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]