The result of the debate was uh...24/4/1 (82% majority), consensus to delete. Mailer Diablo 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is only of interest to current and former members. The (recent) pastor (not creator, but regular editor) is using this to promote himself and the church, as well as 'diss ex-members. We don't have a WP:CHURCH, so I use WP:CORP, which this fails. Rob 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You chaps should look up the menaing of encyclopedia and related words:
A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. adj : broad in scope or content; "encyclopedic knowledge"
Word History: The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and paideia, “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. The first such use in English is recorded in 1644. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 March 2006
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website/movement. A few Google hits when one searches for the term, but few appear relevant to this particular website; for example, this seems to have nothing to do with Paul Kurtz's Humanist Manifesto. Nothing that can be considered a source on notability (i.e., media) seems to link to it either. Might just be adspam. The counter on the website doesn't make it seem notable per WP:WEB either. PROD removed with the comment The Planetary Bill of Rights Project for the people who would be free... which doesn't really answer any questions. Delete. Kinu t/c 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sorority. Unless we want to accept articles on every fraternity and sorority (and dmoz lists 7082 of them), I can't see why small sororities like this with no reliable sources on them should warrant a wikipedia article. According to their website, they have 82 members, almost all clearly having graduated by now. Xyzzyplugh 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep content; merging can be further discussed on the talk page of the article. - Liberatore(T) 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long name for an article and the article isn't even in English. --James 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability suspect, and current article is too POV and spammy even if arguendo notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic. It has an IMDB entry which amusingly notes "If you like this title, we also recommend Watch the Skies!: Science Fiction, the 1950s and Us" however nothing on Amazon. Lots of google hits but nothing to indicate that was even the smallest blip on the radar outside the S11 conspiracy circles. The villagevoice mentions it in passing in one article along with a list of others, but that appears to be as good as it gets for reliable secondary source. When taking into consideration the paucity of material available, the source of IMDB's information being unvetted, the low cost of productian and distribution of a DVD, and the fact that this appears to be mostly distributed via torrent anyway, I recommend deletion. brenneman{L} 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just by reading it, it seems more like an advertisement for the book. It does not seem to be of encyclopedic value. Alex 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete some of this has been mentioned at KAWZ. W.marsh 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even a minor radio station - it's a dedicated piece of hardware set to rebroadcast a minor radio station. I think it's utterly NN. Perhaps someone can explain to us why this is important stuff, but until they do, it doesn't belong. A related article is up for AfD here. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable). --Nlu (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense article, bragging rights by Lewisdee
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quintillion 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quintillion 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to violate WP:No original research -- Eagletalk 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable modding group. A Google search turns up less than 600 results.--PatCheng 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a neologism coined by a wikipedia user, and thus contravenes the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms part of wikipedia's No original research policy. Jgsj 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probable Hoax. Searching for Meesing+Bigfoot gets mirrors or irrelevant results. exolon 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wholly notable in terms of the google test. Plus its marketing and communications departments wishes to take it down. -- Zondor 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to be very bad in its wording. It seems to be extremely biased, and it does not explain why "mainland power" is at all importannt, or why it should have a wikipedia page. Marduuk 02:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the?
Evidently everyone here needs to research more thoroughly the resurgence of Chinese Nationalism abroad, as this article discusses. Simply because none of you have any knowledge whatsoever in the aformentioned fields does not mean you have the right to delete knowledge based upon your ignorant conclusion and lack of contextual understanding.
I do not know how else to add a reply so this will do. —This unsigned comment was added by Gongocongo (talk • contribs) .
Evidently I doubt the specific organistation/"revolutionary" movement would be qouted anywhere, as a lot of it is fictional, I don't doubt but their beliefs are clearly noted in my article.
I would encourage other members to add to the article, instead of merely deleting it.
I never said anywhere it is fictional...
Evidently, if you can't even read my words well...
The group does exist, some facts are ... well yes obviously, but the groups premise, beliefs and opinions are all clearly there.
Please learn to read my words, not misqoute them.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn biography --Hetar 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity page, written by subject. Google search brings up only two pages of results. Non-notable. MikeWazowski 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like and appears to be pure advertisement. The original author also removed a speedy delete tag without comment almost immediately after it was placed. - CorbinSimpson 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity page, written by subject. Google search brings up less than 250 results, mostly from self-promotion. Non-notable. MikeWazowski 03:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete, as requested by author —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-24 06:32Z
Either a nn student bio or vanity. A google search for "daniel fulton" returns 312 unique results (the majority of which were unrelated to this person) and a search for "daniel fulton" "on human thought and understanding" ("his most well known and most important work") returns 0 results. Both speedy and prod and tags were removed; it was userfied to USer:Dgf32 but he decided to recreate it instead. TM 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a speedy tag to the article under the criterion of request for deletion by original author based on Dgf's comment near the bottom of this page and his blanking of the article. --TM 05:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets the following criterion:
5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
As the article meets the stated inclusion criteria, the article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs)
Response:
“Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making”. Science. 18 February 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5712, p. 1009.
Xin, J., Qi, Y., Deng. L. “Dynamics of Basilar Membrane and Signal Processing of Sounds.” CIMMS Workshop. Beckman Institute: 7 March 2003.
As you can see, this article clearly meets the inclusion criteria for an academic. dgf32
Response:
“Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making”. Science. 18 February 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5712, p. 1009.
Xin, J., Qi, Y., Deng. L. “Dynamics of Basilar Membrane and Signal Processing of Sounds.” CIMMS Workshop. Beckman Institute: 7 March 2003.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable documentary, possible advertisement and vanity page. Google search brings up only *38* returns. MikeWazowski 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was why am I up at this time of night deleting garbage articles? DS 05:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn political group with 8 Google hits and a suspicious acronym. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quote, not a biography. Transfer to wikiquote. --Hetar 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparent vanity and advertising page. Non-notable - Google search brings up less than 200 returns, a large number taken from information redistributed from this article.
The result of the debate was delete. (I don't think deleting links or redirects to this article is necessary, since it is likely that a new version of this article will be created at some point.) Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long, silly, and juvenile rant and probably cannot be anything else. Strip it of POV and you have a one sentence description of the term. Move to wiktionary, perhaps. --Tothebarricades 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. It's a discussion board which gives no indications of meeting WP:WEB. I haven't don't any research--moving here as a courtesy to the reprodder. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an 1:1 copy from some marketing paper Malasa 04:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as an attack page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable; subject appears to be user M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sango123 (e) 05:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable; appears to be garbage M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete - nn-bio. -- RHaworth 05:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn and no real content M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was speedily deleted by CanadianCaesar with the delete summary:(content was: '((db-empty))Played by Ashley Tisdale in the High School Musical movie2005 - sister of Ryan Evans (Played by Lucas Grabbel)') —Encephalon 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable character from High School Musical. I question this article's ability to contain content that isn't more appropriate in the article for the movie. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 05:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urban legend, no supporting references. --Chris 05:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a (presumably) real homo sapien with no claim to newsworthiness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn and nonsense M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a memorial for a person with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn, even if it is heartwrenching (sorta...) M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested, seems like an AFD was attempted but never got closed and the AFD was removed from the article. Fails WP:CORP, WP:Music. NN. Delete Dbchip 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label with no media coverage. The only Google hits are to MySpace or Wikipedia. PROD contested. FCYTravis 20:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MySpace hits should not be discounted, but instead taken for what they are, an indication that This Could Work Records is slowly growing in relevance to social circles, enough so that Lonegunmun decided to register a Wikipedia account to start an article on it. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must also express concern over the bias against North Dakota expressed by certain editors in this AFD. Diminishing the cultural achievements of a part of the world does not further the goals of an objective, comprehensive encyclopedia. --AlexWCovington (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn 16 y.o. saxophonist. Several Google hits for the composer Bojidar Spassov (b. 1949, Sofia) but nothing for The Falshimentos. Gimboid13 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE (per WP:SNOW and probable CSD A7 candidate anyway). Rd232 talk 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original PROD by Kungfuadam as non-notable; contested by editors. Delete as non-notable club, and as WP:VSCA-magnet for its members, apparently. Kinu t/c 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webcomic, fails WP:WEB, Alexa ranking is 118,172[16] --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect; if needed, anyone can get the original content from the history and merge it where it is useful. - Liberatore(T) 16:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A poorly-written article already better covered by Game addiction. Maxamegalon2000 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
The result of the debate was keep, sock or no sock. Mailer Diablo 06:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fan cruft. waffle iron 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's up to US $4,150.00 with a total of 98 bids, and over 224,000 hits. For a lock of the main characters HAIR!? If this is anything to go by, the show has more than a few fans, and is definately notable. Silent War 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pure Pwnage is very popular worldwide and too many people watch it to consider this for deletion. The page is a great point of reference for people interested in today's gaming culture. --CharlieA 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^^^^^^^Meaning what? Is my opinion less valid than yours? What gives you the right to undermine my opinion?--CharlieA 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Vanity Page/Advertising. No real content whatsoever/ Geedubber 06:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any source for this. No idea which Victoria it refers to. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, despite the entry's proclamations. Her only IMDB credit is this - [23].
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax. Zero google hits. Prod contested without comment.Henning Makholm 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7 (Userfied). kingboyk 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. OK, he's a stuntman, but he's still trying to break into the industry: "In Dan's attempt to break into the Film Industry he's been signed with Talent 2NV, a background agency for while he is still in his studies; which are schedueled to end September 06." Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an advertisement for a business, not an encyclopedic article Mary Read 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than blatant marketing for a company and a black SEO one at that. asmodai 08:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete to keep it secret... - Liberatore(T) 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No information given about notability and Google does not turn up anything of note. Seems like something made up in school one day. Crystallina 09:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is list at its cruftiest. Is there any foreseeable use to this page? "Well, I like Wikipedia OK...but what I was really looking for is a list of songs where the title repeats itself, and they didn't have it." Pardon my sarcasm, but really I find even the very idea of this page laughable. Yes, it is factual and no, Wikipedia is not paper, but this is an encyclopedia, and all encyclopedias need to distinguish between worthwhile topics and extreme trivialities lest the signal-to-noise ratio surge towards infinity. StarryEyes 09:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Redirect to Barbican Estate. kingboyk 13:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates existing articles Pjc51 10:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7 (for the second time). kingboyk 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. --Nick Boalch ?!? 10:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether or not this person is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, but what I know is that the article is useless. Spam, full of useless trivia. Delete unless rewritten. (Originally nominated for speedy deletion, but I decided to list it here to give it a chance.) - Mike Rosoft 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tree. The article does not assert the significance of the tree, and no proper Google hits except WP and mirrors. The prod was removed without comment, so it ends up here. Robin Johnson 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. I don't think that protecting this against recreation is neccesary just yet, since that is something we usually do when someone consistently recreates it. That does not seem to be the case here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only source of information in the article is the IMDB page which hasn't been updated in almost 2 years. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator simply commented out an old AFD and started a new one in the same page. This is actually the 3rd nomination for the article. For previous AFDs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (second nomination). Blimey O'Riley, what a mess (in the past I mean, not the current nom's fault)! This is actually nomination number 4 or greater:
Page has been deleted 3 times previously:
* 12:35, 12 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Terminator 4" (nonsense) * 00:26, 12 January 2006 EdwinHJ deleted "Terminator 4" (patent nonsense) * 02:41, 30 September 2005 Zscout370 deleted "Terminator 4" (dude, this was an attack page, no need for a AFD.)
--Kingboyk
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete As unverifiable. (eg. how many of those google hits refer to this Matsumoto Marika?) Marcus22 15:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate wasSpeedily redirected to Gocta Cataracts. (aeropagitica) 15:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This stub duplicates Gocta Cataracts. – Jondor 13:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some links here, but I want discussion as this was already voted delete once before. Alba
The result of the debate was Deleted by Enochlau as db-author. -- JLaTondre 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article. It's just a comment made by the leaser of the World Trade Center building number 7. The term "pull it' is not used by the controlled demolition industry, as this "article" would like you to believe. We already have an article on the person who stated this at Larry Silverstein, so this is not only a non article, but a POV fork as well. Delete.--MONGO 14:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No proof this ever existed as an actual JBS committee in article, except as a sketchy reference by critics of JBS Dominick (TALK) 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN machinima production. Possible vanity (may have been created shortly after series begun), but I have little proof of that. If it is notable, it needs to be proven. Drat (Talk) 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate wasSpeedily deleted as per author's request. (aeropagitica) 16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page poorly and I even spelled the title wrong. Just put it out of its misery. Vint 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, Wrong Information and against policies. —This unsigned comment was added by Jameslittle (talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was Deleted by The Epopt. -- JLaTondre 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Versus is a Star Wars fanfilm". Google search on it seems to show it being discussed in star wars or fan film message boards, no place else. Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN game and advertisement. I had originally ((prod))'ed this article for the same reason, but the author has since edited the article without removing the ((prod)) tag. Assuming that the edits were intended to improve the article and contest proposed deletion, I've removed the ((prod)) tag and moved to AfD. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Deleted by Gator1 with summary of fails to assert importance and more like patent nonsense. -- JLaTondre 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. No alexa ranking. Maxamegalon2000 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-notable bios in one article. Delete unless notability information comes to light. GTBacchus(talk) 16:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be non-notable beer, no google hits, does it even exist? Title has slight scent of possible hoax MartinRe 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one scene of the single movie this guy is in was cut. Clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 17:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this article appears to be nothing more than a fluff piece for a person who doesn't meet WP:BIO, as he is a high school coach, entrepreneur, and vice president of the state version of the USATF. PROD was contested claiming that he is a "track and field legend" (a vague descriptor) but I am unable to find anything non-trivial to back that up from Google, Lexis, or Proquest searches. For my money, delete. --Kinu t/c 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. If a talking semi-alcoholic monkey who is pals with Jimmy Saville isn't patent nonsense, I don't know what is. kingboyk 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity nonsense ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an uncontroversial WP:CSD case - Speedy Delete for me. Politepunk 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep schools for organic growth. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable school ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this is an advertisement for a non-notable store. ((prod)) was removed. dcandeto 17:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing included shows legitimacy of store and its notable presence in Toronto. Overturn ruling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentik (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is blatently copied from http://umusic.ca/bobaflex/ This article is simply a posting of the groups info page, which is a possible copyright violation. Even if permission was given for this article to be copied, it does not explain the topic in an encyclopedic format, it sounds like a magazine article. rmosler 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Belongs in Wiktionary, rest of article is just vanity and other nonsense. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bio. Notability is borderline to say the least. As the only edit by user:GTHwrestler, assume vanity. -- RHaworth 18:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a page for an album that doesn't even exist yet? There are no verifiable sources for this. Delete --Hetar 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Hetar 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It exists, it is just due to be release in a few months. Sources for this information just became available a few days ago. As more information about this album is released the article will be further fleshed out from a stub. --Estanton 18:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just added that source (http://www.shock.com.au/news/news_item.asp?News_ID=532). Since the Bad Religion entry already included a dead link to this entry I thought it would make sense to create a stub for that entry. --Estanton 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a fake album at this point, this album is past the rumour point and is upcoming release now. I don't see any point in killing this article just to have it recreated in a few months. I know the article is only a stub at the moment, but there's not that much verifiable information out there at this time. Hopefully the actual labels will release information shortly about the release which would shore up the information. I know this album has yet to be released but why not have a stub to link to the dead links in the Bad Religion article regarding this forthcoming release? --Estanton 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text of this article mentions that "illegitimate" isn't a recognized category in the United States anymore and people born out-of-wedlock are now granted the same rights as those born in wedlock, and yet it proceeds to identify certain people, such as Oprah Winfrey, Eric Clapton, Marilyn Monroe, and Eartha Kitt, as "illegitimates". That doesn't make much sense. How can they be "illegitimates" when they are from a country that doesn't recognize the concept? Also, the reference to them as "illegitimates" seems to be without any verification. Where have these individuals ever been referred to as "illegitimates"? Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be based on verifiable sources? I have never heard any of these individuals termed "illegitimates", and I have never heard of Eva Peron being termed an "illegitimate". This article seems completely unnecessary and completely without verifiction. If one wants to mention that these respective individuals were born out-of-wedlock, wouldn't it be preferable to mention that on their respective pages? What use does this page serve? -- Andrew Parodi 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing Evita from the list, and I think that it is best that you removed Eric Clapton as well. About the Random House definition, that may be that they clarify the term "illegitimate" in relation to someone born out-of-wedlock, but that doesn't change the fact that the term "illegitimate" can pertain to many different situations and circumstances. This page does not clarify the different meanings of the word, the different ways the word has been used, nor does it qualify that within this list the only people who are termed "illegitimates" are people born out-of-wedlock.
Further, an argument could feasibly be made that referring to a person as an "illegitimate" is within the realms of hate speech. Could you imagine if someone made a list called "A list of niggers"? I mean, you could probably compile a list of notable African Americans who have been referred to as "niggers" at some point in their lives, and thereby argue that because these people have been referred to by that word then the list is justified. But the word "nigger" is largely regarded as hate speech, and any list called "A list of niggers" would be perceived as a list endorsing the use of that word and endorsing the discrimination synonymous with that word -- and therefore such a list would be met with resistance.
I hesitate to use that n-word because it is so controversial, but to be frank, I find it as offensive to refer to a person as an "illegitimate" as I find it to refer to a person as a "nigger". As an earlier editor mentioned, this list is probably best to be removed because otherwise it will create a vandalism and POV nightmare. Thank you for removing Evita and Eric Clapton. Now if only I could get you to see that the entire page itself should be removed.... -- Andrew Parodi 04:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could similar arguments — vandalism risk, possibly uncertain importance to an individual's notability — not be made for deleting other existing lists as well, for example, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people? logologist|Talk 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Wikipedia, somewhat to my surprise, actually does have lists of persons who have suffered from schizophrenia and from diabetes mellitus. The first ("Notable people thought to be affected by schizophrenia") appears within the "Schizophrenia" article. The second is a free-standing "List of diabetics."
What about a title like List of historic "illegitimates," with the word "illegitimates" placed in quotes to indicate present-day doubts about the legitimacy of that term itself, whenever it may have been applied? The article might list only deceased individuals, and only from periods when the category was legally considered valid throughout the individual's lifetime. Anatopism 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep, improper listing. Ashibaka tock 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anmol.2k4 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this page for deletion because it is written with a point of view , excessive use of unreliable sources.and the title "Khalistan" is wrong for the topic because "Khalistan" does not exist,lack of support from resident Punjabi's and Sikhs in India, but there was a "Movement for Khalistan" and that is the right title for the topic, and i think this whole article "a new name" should be rewritten with the help of people from sikh community "in" India and other Indians, because this topic is related to politics/people of India.We all should understand Khalistan is not a political entity and having a article is not justified, Microsoft Encarta and Britannic encyclopedia don't have an article known as "Khalistan" but they do have articles on the movement that took place decades back, and i think there are also copyright issues involved with this article because big parts of this article are written on other peoples research. Many reliable sources are used to show "one side" of their view on the topic, there are also indications that organisations banned by US and EU are involved in providing their research on the movement.I am a strong supporter to have a stub on this topic , but im afraid that such articles on wikipedia have become mouthpieces for organisation which are known for disrupting peace (assassination of one of india's prime minister, twin bomb blast in New Delhi on the eve of Diwali) in Indian sub continent.
Anmol.2k4 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page. EvilOverlordX 18:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. W.marsh 19:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, the entire part consisted of her being killed on a transporter pad. She doesn't even have a page on memory-alpha. Philip Stevens 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only real claim to notability is appearence on an MTV spinoff. Fightindaman 19:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being taught about at a University and being on MTV (even if it is a spin off) seems like plenty of notability Lyo 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--punjabifire 18:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC) *Keep Adding sources involves linking in a language I am not familiar with. If any would like to help me, I could send them the proper websites. Though a google search will pull up everything but the MTV interview, which is set to air on Monday. http://www.uark.edu/misc/honors/honors.info/colloquiaSpring2006.htm[reply]
I'd hardly call Muslim Wake Up! fringe press. A stop on their website confirms their notability. http://www.muslimwakeup.com
The result of the debate was merge/redirect some content is already there. W.marsh 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He only appeared in one scene of one movie. Philip Stevens 19:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. It's been merged, so we're left with little choice but to redirect. -Splashtalk 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not notable, no reliable source, only linked from one article Baba Louis 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously Prod'd for the reasons of having no clear evidence of notability, and quite probably being advertising. Delete for the same reason. I also invite other users to take a look at the articles about their films that this user has created, as if this article goes, they most likely should as well. --InShaneee 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Challenged PROD. Original research; a previous revision of the article said that the term was coined March 23, 2006, so it's clearly not encyclopedic. Catamorphism 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page(?) OrbitOne 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising, not sure if they otherwise meet WP:CORP. Elkman - (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Taken here for consensus. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Verification trumps hearts. While the Savage article implies that this is used in common parlance, a single source isn't enough. Not to impune Dan's reputation, but responding to an anonymous email from "JACK OFF WANGS" isn't the best citation we could ask for. - brenneman{L} 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-encyclopedic: (joke) sexual position, possible hoax. Was prod and prod2 but was cleared. RJFJR 21:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of meeting WP:CORP, written as an advertisement. Apparently speedied once already (see talk). Sandstein 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, on what basis do you assert it was "apparently" speedied? Glendonflowers 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the following 3rd-party articles about Patton:
-Glendonflowers 23:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please take another look. The spam links have been replaced with internal wiki links. Isn't the Patton page is comparable to the RAD page (which is not slated for deletion)? Are there substantial differences? If so, please advise. Glendonflowers 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please visit http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/105/16883.
Here are some more external links pointing to Patton as a player in the marketplace...
http://whitepapers.businessweek.com/detail/ORG/948134608_119.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0000239990-page.html http://www.mwcmc.org/mwcmcUserDetail.php?userID=281 http://local.yahoo.com/results?stx=%22patton+electronics%22&toggle=1&qry=%22patton+electronics%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&coei=UTF-8 http://www.thomasnet.com/heading.html?what=Enclosures%3A+Electronic&searchpos=25&cid=371639&heading=26070201&navsec=products http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/105/16883 http://www.capitol-college.edu/newsevents/8920_36.shtml http://www.motionnet.com/cgi-bin/search.exe?a=sc&no=11167 http://datafire.patton.com/ http://www.elsitech.com/customer/customer_casestudiesPatton.html http://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,39025945,60010883p-39000421q,00.htm
Is this enough web presence to qualify notabillity? Glendonflowers 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks likely to be an original idea, but Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ptcamn 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus (defaults to keep); I have redirected as an action of regular editing. - Liberatore(T) 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician Dunstan 21:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable Dunstan 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all three - Liberatore(T) 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax - unsourced and disputed tags have already been removed so bringing it here. Bundling related Cuthbert Wimbleshorne article in same Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Article does not assert the reason as to why this person is notable, and other than his post, what accomplishments make him worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Ragib 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anmol.2k4 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Not entirely sure here, since churches have often been deleted if they are less than a hundred years old and not particularily large or unusual. But I feel that 5d-4k is beyond my discretion to call anything else than a "no consensus" when the arguument is one over notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Ned Scott 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robotic cars are vehicles that will be able to drive themselves, apparently. Or maybe they aren't - we don't know because they don't exist. When they do, they may or may not exhibit the features listed, and they may or may not be called robotic cars. Probably beter to wait until they've been invented, I guess. Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. — Mar. 30, '06 [12:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>
There are no reliable third-party sources (see WP:V, Wikipedia:Reliable sources) which discuss this non-notable website. Quote from the policy:
The content of this article is unverifiable, and any discussion of its content (i.e., the entire article right now) qualifies as original research. Delete as nn and unverifiable. Ashibaka tock 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been sockpuppetry going on here which the closing admin will need to consider. Please be advised that the user of sockpuppets in a deletion debate is a blockable offense and highly frowned upon. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and Redirect'. Kurdistan is not an actual geographic location. Rather, "Kurdistan" refers to a regional ethnic identity existing across states. Ethnicities exist within and across political borders. Thus an article called "Turkish Kurdistan" would have to deal with ethnic Turks, if such a body exists anymore, living in a region titled "Kurdistan," assuming one existed. The article seems to suggest the content concerns Turkish administrated Kurdistan but since a state with that name has never and does not currently exist then it is impossible to determine the nature of the Turkish administration of it. --Strothra 18:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we create a page called Geopolitical disputes regarding Kurdistan and put all sides of each argument there. Then, at the top of each disputed Kurd or Kurdistan related page, we can put a link which says "See also Geopolitical disputes regarding Kurdistan". What about this? Merecat 22:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Rewrite and shorten Turkish Kurdistan page so it won't act as if TK is a breakaway de facto state in Southeastern Turkey. At the beginnig of the article it should say "For the geopolitic Turkish region see Southeastern Anatolia" or something like that, whatever the proper language is. But this will, in my opinion, be POV fork. 2. Delete the entire article and move the information to Southeastern Anatolia. Turkish Kurdistan will redirect to this page and in it the unofficial name will be mentioned like in Chinese Turkistan. This I think is the most decent thing to do. I really don't understand people who fail to see the legitimate argument here. I am having a hard time assuming good faith.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Figures for the 2004 Turkish Provincial Elections (electing members of the Provincial Assemblies) in the 'at least' 17 Turkish provinces covered by the article (former Category: Kurdistan in wikipedia covered 20 provinces, therefore their number is displaying an unmistakably decreasing trend!!!).
Hakkari Province: SHP 46,56 % - AKP 32,03 %
Şırnak Province: SHP 37,27 % - AKP 24,97 - DYP 16,82 %
Mardin Province: SHP 27,12 % - AKP 23,23 % - DYP 13,43 % - CHP 11,75 %
Batman Province: SHP 49,69 % - AKP 17,76 % - SP 10,57 %
Diyarbakır Province: SHP 41,84 % - AKP 30,79 %
Tunceli Province: SHP 23,01 % - CHP 19,71 % - AKP 16,93 %
Siirt Province: AKP 39,23 % - SHP 27,72 %
Bingöl Province: AKP 44,30 % - SHP 14,77 % - SP 13,42 %
Muş Province: AKP 31,20 % - SHP 29,56 %
Bitlis Province: AKP 29,11 % - SHP 15,19 % - SP 11,72 %
Van Province: AKP 44,83 % - SHP 26,66 %
Ağrı Province: AKP 34,66 % - SHP 19,21 %
Elazığ Province: AKP 33,20 % - DYP 28,96 % - SP 13,67 % - MHP 7,90 % - SHP 3,69 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Malatya Province: AKP 47,57 % - CHP 16,43 % - MHP 15,20 % - SP 5,93 % - SHP 4,25 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Erzincan Province: AKP 40,61 % - CHP 21,24 % - MHP 16,85 % - SHP 4,25 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Erzurum Province: AKP 48,61 % - MHP 18,86 % - DYP 8,49 % - SP 5,01 % - SHP 4,08 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Adıyaman Province: AKP 41,11 % - SP 15,04 % - CHP 13,09 % - DYP 10,41 % - SHP 6,54 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Kars Province: AKP 40,21 % - MHP 16,40 % - CHP 11,13 % - DYP 9,46 % - SHP 8,89 % (welcome to Kurdistan)
Source: [58]
As a side-note and strictly as a metaphor, I find it a pity that, instead of developping the articles on Sezen Aksu and Dario Moreno, I had to spend time looking for and presenting these figures to balance the dishwater of the out-of-touch, the know-not, the prejudiced and the agenda promoter.
(This is the second message I am posting. I voted above.) --Cretanforever 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the article to focus it more on the concept of a "Turkish Kurdistan" (where it's deemed to be, why it doesn't exist as a political entity, etc). If you've already voted here, please take a look at the revised article and consider whether you might want to adjust your vote. -- ChrisO 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For comparisons of content quality, approach and tone. Padania. p.s There is no article for "Italian Padania" --Cretanforever 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Tsuki no Misaki since they have indeed all been merged. -Splashtalk 23:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has spent a great deal of effort to make decent stubs (if in bad English) for all the roads in his neighbourhood. However, it's unfortunate that all of these roads very much appear to be non-notable, and that Wikipedia is not a travel guide to the suburbs of the world. We've had this discussion already for a smaller number of substantially identical Tokyo road stubs here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meiji zaka.
The articles up for deletion as non-notable are:
I've not AfD-tagged all of them to save time, but I've notified the creator. To that list one might add much of what else is linked from Tsuki no Misaki, but that's for another AfD. Sandstein 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really unnecesary. We have a Kurdish people... --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the virtual residence of a "virtual band" and is crufty. Apparently the virtual band itself is notable. It should be deleted, or at very least, merged and redirected to the band's article, which is what I boldly did earlier, only to be reversed. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 22:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google cannot confirm this beyond subculture use; it does not appear to be defined in any dictionary I have seen. Chris 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrongly Bundled with AfD for Lior Haramaty
The result of the debate was deleted. Mailer Diablo 17:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled with AfD for Lior Haramaty
This company is pretty noticeable (to say the least) in the industry, with works in the Met museum, the Tel Aviv Museum and others. You can see the long list of publications on the company's website, and I included here a short list of google retrieved links - I can assure you that no Google bombing was done by Designfenzider,. The entries are all related to either bloggers that are excited about the designs, publication that had articles about the company and the designer (worldwide, see this month ID magazine, Wallpaper magazine, last week's NYT business section), stores that are selling the company's products and directory entries that got picked up (I guess. for good or worse) from dmoz.
The main designer, Ron Gilad (another article-that-should-be-written), is well known and established. Objects are sold world-wide from galleries in Paris, stored in Tokyo to the MoMA and Cooper-Hewitt stores in NY.
Of course, the issue if this or any other company should be listed in here is up for debate, but to say this is not a known company or that it was trying to skew search results is just incorrect. If anything, this article should be expended by someone from the Design industry or academic world. My two cents – it’s up to the rest of you (the world) to take it from here…
[61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as per tags. (aeropagitica) 23:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patent nonsense. Crystallina 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First nomination was here. Was in December 2005, and result was "no consensus". Nominating for three reasons. Firstly, the topic is almost necessarily some form of original research. It has to quote "recent studies", which to me is OR. Secondly, as mentioned in the last nomiination, the topic is "nebulous"; what precisely does it mean? Is it talking about different factors that affect educational performance? In that case, it should probably be part of the Education in the United Kingdom article (which itself needs a huge makeover). If it is about educational sociology, it should in the Education article. It seems to fill none of these roles, and for me can never; it is hopelessly unfocussed. Finally, what does it have to do with education in the UK? The current article has nothing to do with it, and I cannot see how it ever can be. What specifically is there about education in the UK that deserves an article of this kind (whatever "kind" of article it is)? Batmanand | Talk 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author contested ((prod)). Web forum with no Alexa rank, 39 users, and 30 posts; does not come close to WP:WEB Vslashg (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A case of WP:AUTO, poor google score [74]. Doubt this will pass WP:BIO Eivindt@c 00:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's said in this article amounts to the equivalent of saying there is a "Punk Voter" subculture of punk or something, which is absurd. It's a website, sure, that talks about a political category laid over a social one (people who are both conservative and punk), but the two have no special meaning in conjunction. I could say Libertarian punk, Republican punk, Constitutionalist punk, Democrat punk, but none of these have special meaning (unlike, say, anarcho-punk, which is a particular social subgroup and would merit discussion as such). The article reads like a debate (or at least one side of it), and isn't linked to any social movement except that tied to the website, which was just a reactionary jab at Punk Voter anyway. Not to mention (like I've said), I see the article as something full of broad (and generally incorrect or meaningless) generalizations, mixed with unencyclopedic and non-NPOV claims. I would say just change it to be an article about the website, but that (judging by the previous discussion) there's a consensus that it's worth having an article at all. 149.43.x.x 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]