< November 5 | November 7 > |
---|
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why this is in the main article space, but it should not be. Tom Harrison Talk 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Yanksox. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web shop. --fvw* 00:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Author of various self-published online works. I removed the long list of articles on his personal website. His organization is also up for afd. Arbusto 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO, at first glance he appears to be notable, but its just a list of his beliefs. As someone noted on my talk, "He's not any better known than other Islamic public speakers, it's just that the article has been the scene of frantic revert wars between those who find him hilarious". [12] Arbusto 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable group. No independent sources. Started by a person who also started an article on the groups founder. Also up for afd. Arbusto 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:V and WP:CORP. --Coredesat 00:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? There are only two sources of trivial mention, which fails WP:CORP. No google news hits. One mention is "Determined to apply academic rigor to his pursuit, Mr. Villella took several online courses from Flamel College, which keeps a post office box in Sacramento ..."[14] WP:CORP is clear and this fails criteria. Arbusto 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits should be the primary reason we include an article, but whatever. Based on the numbers there is no consensus to delete, thankfully arguments other than the google hits were presented, and per JJay's argument and evidence there does seem to be reliable information written about this topic. I suggest actually citing it in the article, which is about 0.02% as long as this AfD. W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? Created by Drsalleh (talk · contribs), who's only made 3 article edits. Approved by California's consumer department (NOT education), thus must pass WP:CORP. Possible diploma mill.[19] Arbusto 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was flagged as copyvio from [34]. MER-C 10:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ... and deleted as empty and unexpandable due to verifiability issues. Guy 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable, unaccredited "school." Anyone even attend this place? Anyone even know what city this place claims to be in? Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, per WP:V - material that doesn't meet it shouldn't be in one article or another. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A webmaster of a online "ministry" and author of one self-published book. Arbusto 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also: 1) The leading atheist website www.infidels.org lists 40 Christian apologists and JP Holding is listed among them (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html)
2) Next, well known Christians have spoken favorably of his ministry (if memory serves Hank Hanegraaff" The Bible answer man" on the radio spoke well of Holding for example). Here is a link to one of Holdings articles at his website: When apologetics was evangelism by JP Holding
3) Many well known atheists disparage Holding and these atheists are listed among Wikipedia subject headings. What better recommendation of your relevance can you get than the public disparagement of those who oppose your viewpoint!
I cite:
G.A. Wells (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html )
Farrell Till (see: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/turkey.html )
Holding returns the disparagement here:
G.A. Wells http://www.tektonics.org/TK-W.html
Farrell Till http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html
4) Even the www.infidels.org website has mentioned Holding in rather favorable terms.
I cite:
"Updated the author page of Kyle J. Gerkin with an added link to the "Scholarly Diplomacy Series." (Off Site)
Kyle J. Gerkin and J.P. Holding amicably engage each other in an and ongoing discussion of their differing worldviews. The goal is to tear down the wall of antipathy that too often divides Christians and skeptics, so as to foster a respectful understanding of those differences."
taken from: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/new/2003/may2003.shtml
5) Holding's website gets a lot off traffic and his articles often get high rankings on the search engines as many people link to them.
6) Holding has been published.
7) I know that many evangelical ministers are aware of Holding. I spoke to one last month and he is aware of Holding.
ken 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources and no claims of notability. Vague description of what it is does not directly assert is goals or importance. Arbusto 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per Charlene and nom. JoshuaZ 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per new info presuming that the claims can be sourced. JoshuaZ 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I starting to see a trend. Helical Rift 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 01:58, 12 November 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)) . |
Marked as a speedy, which was then disputed. I'm not sure, they get a reasonable number of google hits but then again that number will be hugely inflated for these kinds of sites. No vote. --fvw* 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats true but they do boast a membership of over 300,000 registered members in just about 2 years. I believe that is a large enough pool of people to permit us to make a wiki about it. It is one of the largest players in the warez scene and i have seen much smaller boards have a wiki. -Zabzu
hold on, can i have the admins of the site come and talk to give a reliable second source and prove he validity of all 300,000 members
here are the service stats of the board alone
Server Load: 2342 pages served in previous 5 minutes. Page generation time: 0.25508 seconds - SQL queries: 18
Our users have posted a total of 2347368 articles We have 300415 registered users The newest registered user is avrillirva In total there are 435 users online :: 354 Registered, 35 Hidden and 46 Guests [ Administrators ] [ Moderators ] [ VIP ] [ Donator ] Most users ever online was 1116 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 16:14
are you serious why to delete this page ?? ProjectW is the best !!!!!!
^ Yes, ProjectW is the shiz!
-- note that the above unsigned comment was left by user Zabzu --
ProjectW gains over 500 new members a day. It has 2347603 articles. I have seen much smaller sites have wikis and i think you should give our a chance, the site can only grow. We have members from almost every single country in the world. As soon as the Admins get on i can access the tracker info to show you how large and well represented projectw is.
Secondary sources to back up the content? Warez boards are usually not officially listed as warez but i can prove that it is one of the 20 largest phpbb boards.
omg! all this discussion... ok, but to come to the point.. can we have the article or not?
here is a source, on of the 20 largest warez board, in fact projectw would be number 9 http://rankings.big-boards.com/?filter=phpBB,all&sort=members they refuse to lost Warez boards and other adult content but in fact if you sort by members ou will find projectw fits into 9th place
i still do not understand what you mean by secondary sources. IS big-baords not a secondary source?
And no projectw is also notable for the fact that It is the largest warez forum on the internet. When people download warez they have two choices, a bittorrent client or a forum and the number one forum is Us.
Also ProjectW beats the other warez competition in the fact that we have almost double the members of our two competitors and we are affiliated wiht other large warez sites such as katz.ws
We are the Largest Warez Board and the 9th Largest phpbb board. That clear? Also this is the most reliable way to track the size of these boards.
The result was keep. --Coredesat 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. W.marsh 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
disputed PROD for NN-local church delete DesertSky85451 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. There's no presence on Google for this band beyond wiki and its mirrors, plus a myspace page. The news article about the band member's survival of a plane crash did not mention the band. -- Whpq 01:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online game. Looks like it fails WP:V and WP:WEB as there appears to be no reliable independent coverage. Delete as such. Wickethewok 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Website/company/forums that appear to fail WP:WEB, WP:CORP, and WP:V. There doesn't seem to be any reliable independent coverage on the subject. Biggest claims to fame seems to be that it has a lot of pages and the staff attends gaming trade events. Delete. Wickethewok 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums. That aside, no evidence was presented that this meets WP:WEB, non-trivial third-party coverage. The 3 references other than forum posts never ammount to more than a sentence each about this website. W.marsh 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online community failing WP:V/WP:WEB. I request sources on the talk page for the article, but haven't gotten anything besides blog links or trivial mentions. Only 14 unique Google hits. Delete. Wickethewok 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete established. W.marsh 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant, articles already exist seperately on science and technology. In fact most of this page's text is lifted from those two articles. (this was a speedy nomination, which I changed to AfD; there is also a related discussion on Talk:Science and technology ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a neologism, as a Google search reveals only fifty results outside Wikipedia. Additionally, the way the article is written appears to indicate it is copied from another source. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group of hackers or something that doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:V. Looks like mostly vanity and original research. Pretty much all of the "references" make no reference to the subject of the article. Only the ABCnews article even mentions the subject, and even then, only a couple times in some passing sentences. Delete as failing any reliable independent coverage. Wickethewok 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Sources
The definition of reference:
(ref er ence –noun ) 1. an act or instance of referring.; 2. a mention; allusion.; 3. something for which a name or designation stands; denotation.; 4. a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.; 5. a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.; 6. reference mark (def. 2).; 7. material contained in a footnote or bibliography, or referred to by a reference mark.; 8. use or recourse for purposes of information: a library for public reference.; 9. a person to whom one refers for testimony as to one's character, abilities, etc.; 10. a statement, usually written, as to a person's character, abilities, etc.; 11. relation, regard, or respect: all persons, without reference to age. –verb (used with object); 12. to furnish (a book, dissertation, etc.) with references: Each new volume is thoroughly referenced.; 13. to arrange (notes, data, etc.) for easy reference: Statistical data is referenced in the glossary.; 14. to refer to: to reference a file.
Being that EACH article in the references, specifically references the moniker(s) of the HNC Network and also some of those formerly involved with it, said reference is therefore verifiable and legitimate as it is relevant to the entity in which it refers, no matter how major or minor said reference is.
Now, not withstanding this article has a ways to come, but even a quick search across any major search engine offers several substantial clues to why, where and when this group existed. Let alone the group seemingly has a current effort underway at www.thereformed.org, of which the group could obviously be contacted for a first-hand account or pointers towards other verifiable content. Perhaps this is a case of someone not wishing to help in finishing the homework?
The disturbing thing is this, your lack of willingness to assist in clearing up this article's potential misgivings and your history of requests in attempting to axe many well-laid articles simply due to your impatience with those lacking MASS quantities of referencial materials. Your contribs speak for themselves, play God on another Wiki, leave this one to those that can be objective and helpful in creating a incredible Internet resource of new content while paying tribute to the heritage and of those that walked before it, such as this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
Yet this has been anything but. NOONE apparently has attempted contact with the original author or the other contributors, which there seems to be a substantial few to attempt to correct this article and refine it..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a neologism, "teddy tired", which has not gained common currency. A google search for "teddy tired" came up with very few relevant hits, all of which seemed to be from blogs. No reliable secondary sources were cited in the article. I could not verify that the Hoodoo Gurus wrote a song lyric about "teddy tired" with a variety of google searches. The article itself says this neologism is specific to a particular industry and goes on to point out that it is more of a one-man campaign than a common expression in Australia or elsewhere. Teddy Tired fails WP:NEO. Darkspots 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Redirect. Article already included on Hawaiian Airlines main page. Not enough content to warrent its own space. -bobby 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150.135.180.195 added this info into the main Hawaiian Airlines article today. Honestly, I think Hawaiian is small enough that it's not a big hindrance to have this list maintained in the main Hawaiian article as opposed to having a separate article to list their destinations. Hawaiian717 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable accreditation mill. When this was created I looked into this and found only one article from a magazine (its the one source cited). It is not an approved accreditor or tied to any credible school, and I noted it accordingly. Thus, since it is not recognized by the Department of Education it must pass WP:CORP. I see no evidence of that. What city is it in? What country is it in? There is not enough material for an article, and as it stands it is an article about what it isn't. Therefore, not wikiworthy. Arbusto 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barely-coherent quasi-POV OR attempt to create a corollary to Godwin's Law.
The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only source cited is own website. Piece was originally spam/fluff, author asserted notability but "sources" provided barely mention the guy and are not notable or reliable regardless. No new sources have been provided so recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merge not ruled out. W.marsh 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly an amusing proposal, but this smacks of original research or an outright hoax since the only sources are A) a blog and B) a book that appears to not really exist. Also might have something to do with the Colbert Report... that should make it fun. Anyway, if someone can produce reliable sources confirming this topic great, but otherwise this article needs to go. --W.marsh 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than start discussion of votes, let's start a discussion section here...
There shouldn't be anything in Michigan Legislature, as the Michigan government would obviously be vehemently opposed to the idea of losing all of the taxpayers in the UP, it's a very interesting article and should most definitely stay. 141.209.236.224 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STORIES OF THE BADGER STATE. THE BOUNDARIES OF WISCONSIN
USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing
free information on the Internet, data may be used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or for presentation by other persons or organizations.
Persons or organizations desiring to use this material for purposes other than stated above must obtain the written consent of the file contributor.
This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by: Tina S. Vickery <TVick65536@aol.com>
From a 1900 Book: STORIES OF THE BADGER STATE by Reuben Gold Thwaites Copyright, 1900
- The people of the northwest wished to be released from Wisconsin, in order that they might either cast their fortunes with their near neighbors in the new Territory of Minnesota, or join a movement just then projected for the creation of an entirely new State, to be called "Superior." This .proposed state was to embrace all the country north of Mont Trempealeau and east of the Mississippi, including the entire northern peninsula, if the latter could be obtained; thus commanding the southern land western shores of Lake Superior, with the mouth of Green Bay and the foot of Lake Michigan to the southeast.
- .
- The St. Croix representative in the legislature was especially wedded to the Superior project. He pleaded earnestly and eloquently for his people, whose progress, he said, would be "greatly hampered by being connected politically with a country from which they are separated by nature, cut off from communication by immense spaces of wilderness between." A memorial from the settlers themselves stated the case with even more vigor, asserting that they were "widely separated from the settled parts of Wisconsin, not only by hundreds of miles of mostly waste and barren lands, which must remain uncultivated for ages, but equally so by a diversity of interests and character in the population." All of this reads curiously enough in these days, when the intervening wilderness resounds with the hum of industry and " blossoms as the rose." But that was long before the days of railroads; the dense forests of central and western Wisconsin then constituted a formidable wilderness, peopled only by savages and wild beasts.
- .
- Unable to influence the Wisconsin legislature, which stubbornly contended for the possession of the original tact, the St. Croix people next urged their claims upon Congress. The proposed State of Superior found little favor at Washington, but there was a general feeling that Wisconsin would be much too large unless trimmed. The result was that when she was finally admitted as a State, the St. Croix River was, in large part, made her northwest boundary; Minnesota in this Manner acquired a vast stretch of country, including the thriving city of St. Paul.
- .
- Wisconsin was thus shorn of valuable territory on the south, to please Illinois; on the northeast, to favor Michigan; and on the northwest, that some of her settlers might join their fortunes with Minnesota. The State, however, is still quite as large as most of her sisters in the Old Northwest, and possesses an unusual variety of soils, and a great wealth of forests, mines, and fisheries. There is a strong probability that, bad Congress, in 1848, given to Wisconsin her "ancient limits," as defined by the Ordinance of 1787, the movement to create the proposed state of "Superior" would have gathered strength in the passing years, and possibly would have achieved success, thus depriving us of our great northern forests and mines, and our outlet upon the northern lake.
MPS 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Check out this 1975 map (bigger map here) proposed by C. Etzel Pearcy, geography professor at California State University, Los Angeles... and story corroborating Pearcy's proposalMPS 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Although 2 newspaper articles are cited their notability is questionable Dylan Lake (t·c·ε) 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – Avi 03:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability appears to be questionable. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:AUTO, creator was Thepinksuicidallemming (talk · contribs). Thegreensuicidallemming (talk · contribs) has also edited the page. 27 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 08:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence provided to meet WP:MUSIC. Nothing particularly reliable on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 08:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Pgk (talk · contribs) speedily deleted "Ulnis" (a1 - see WP:CSD)
Unless I'm misssing something the text reads like nonesense Malcolma 09:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable & Fails WP:BIO DXRAW 09:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I have added the merge suggestion tags. W.marsh 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to ba a hoax to me. I found a source stating that the Guiness Book 1978 indeed had an entry for this person, but nothing else. There was a previous discussion for this article under an other name, the result was Delete. -- lucasbfr talk 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nomination, listed now. Kusma (討論) 10:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. – Avi 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taggedand deleted as CSD G4 (repost) following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Baseball Online but the content is substantially different from the original, which sucked royally. It remains to be seen whether this is genuinely significant per WP:WEB, an issue not really addressed before as the article as originally deleted was blatant vanispamcruftisement. Over to you... Guy 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://pc.ign.com/objects/822/822506.html
The result was keep, as somebody has actually merged and two of those arguing for deletion don't appear to be against this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This and several other articles (listed below) are kind of a how-to guide for Mediation in Australia, in violation of WP:NOT, even though they have sources. Any useful information should be added to the general article. I speedied all of these once, and they have been recreated; let's get a consensus. NawlinWiki 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also included:
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
super NN team from "Division 1 of the Thursday Night 6 a side league" - crz crztalk 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will recreate as a redirect to emoticon. Never mind. --Coredesat 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list. Of Google Talk emoticons. I don't know if it should be merged or just deleted. JDtalk 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, just a big advert. Guy 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a big advert Flup 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no claim of notability, apart from being spouse of someone notable, and offspring of someone midly notable without Wikipedia entry. Searhc engine comes up with next to nothing too. These are the only tools I personally have for any AFD debates. --Dangherous 13:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Dangherous 13:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN neologism Palfrey 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable (his real name isn't even known, fails Google test, doesn't meet minimum standards as laid out in WP:BIO, etc.) Caliga10 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Redirect. Not notable enough for his own article. -bobby 15:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. In my opinion, it possibly goes under CSD A7. Google returned other Bill Panelas. Imoeng 13:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is has been suggested that this is just a phrase. Mike 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I've used a different version of the AfD template:AfDU --Mike 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Mike 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Dangherous 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is about a boat which sank off the shores of Northern Ireland in 2002 and 3 members of its crew, all of the same family, died as a result. This seems to me as borderline notable. But maybe for Northern Irelanders there is something historic and symbolic or otherwise notable about it. I wouldn't know, am not from N.I. --Dangherous 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Dangherous 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically not a G4, though this was just deleted a couple days ago through AFD, here. Same reason for this nom (as an individual video game unit). Wickethewok 14:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. There are no corresponding lists for south, west and east, and the criterion is fairly silly. This list is a) unmaintainable b) has a potential of growing indefinitely c) sourced from a defunct geocities site. Duja► 15:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable MMORPG. Apart from the awards, which are issued monthly by the members (currently 1737) of the website and are thus hardly notable or major, there are no external sources given, even though the article exists for over a year now (so plenty of time). A free game like there are many free games (in terms of verifiability and mainstream attention), fails WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:CORP (for products). Fram 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed without comment by anon. Wikipedia is not a book of recipes, least of all dangerous-sounding ones without sources. Delete. —Angr 16:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What constitutes a fictional place is too ambiguous. This list is as unmaintanable as a List of fictional places. --Vossanova o< 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:BIO, and the nominator doesn't even support deletion. If you want to discuss notability in general, please use the talk page. --Wafulz 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this curler notable enough? I think so, but I wanted to see what the people think. Weak keep at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will recreate as a redirect to hard water. --Coredesat 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unreferenced, notability not established. Khatru2 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; apart from weight of numbers, the points made about the lack of definition and sourcing are persuasive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate collection of information Ccady 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any other additions to this? I think that presents a pretty comprehensive deletion case. --Jayron32 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable self-published author. The creator of this article, Eeriemind, has only created articles related to Brett Blumfield and the username is a reference to Blumfield's website, The Eerie Mind Of Brett Blumfield. Most likely vanity. IrishGuy talk 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable book. The publisher is an on-demand publisher [55] which makes this a self-published book by a non-notable author. The author's article, Brett Blumfield, is also under review. IrishGuy talk 18:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, per consensus of established users. --Coredesat 19:56, 11 November 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)) . |
Appeared in one movie and died, apparently with no real role in the movie otherwise. I don't think this qualifies as notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) "keep" I think this article should be cleaned up, but I see no reason to delete it- keep Stumblemonkey[reply]
Strong KeepIF YOU DELETE THIS, I will personally feel the need to file a complaint with the owners of Wikipedia because GENE WEXLER is an amazing person and he is the only person that I can think of that deserves to have his own "section" to say the least on Wikipedia. So if you delete this or want it deleted, THINK AGAIN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.157.62 (talk • contribs) .
KeepI completely disagree with the previous statement. Gene Wexler should be kept on wikipedia for his obvious importance and contribution to society. Nicholas' Gift was a key part of the movement to help support organ donation. Gene Wexler played the young boy, Nicholas, who is possibly the most crucial character in the show. While only having a small part in terms of time, his importance to the movie could not have been more crucial. The only action that should be taken against this wikipedia page is expansion. 205.188.116.201 20:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-This article can admittedly use cleanup (and I am willing to do it). But the fact is Wexler is an actor with an important role in the movie. And as per the above editor, the movie and more specificly Wexler has made an impact on society. 68.193.95.73 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The argument for deletion is false. This article is very notable as Wexler has made a large impact on society. His role in the movie, although short, flashes back various times. His role is vital in the movie and the plot would be lost without him. Also, he is an established musician, taking part in a variation of Stomp and has been in many musicals and dramas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.95.73 (talk • contribs) .
KEEP! whats with the need to delete this page when there isn't a lack of space on wikipedia. He worked for that role and has a right to be noted. Remeber, in theater, there are no small parts!!!! 67.85.95.121 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bold textKEEP - GENE WEXLER IS A MUST KEEP68.193.81.39 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important thing!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.93.71 (talk • contribs) .
KEEP THIS ARTICLE Though the movie was only a TV movie, it still raised much awareness about organ donation. I know a few people who were impacted by this movie and became organ donors themselves. It was interesting to read about the actor who played Nicholas and what he is doing now. Maybe we will see more of him in the future. He did a pretty good job, so i suggest you keep this article!
Delete I'm more noteable than this guy. So's my wife, and she was just an extra for the Beeb. Robovski 01:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has been in only one movie and that movie is not notable enough to have its own article. Cynrin 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Just because it was only one small part, doesn't mean it wasnt significant. a part is a part, no matter the size. The film, along with Wexler, helped bring transplant awareness up. A reason in itself to keep the young actor, here on Wikipedia. — 67.85.85.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Reply You say "until" he has achieved more. This page is continuing to expand as he keeps achieving more. He recently recieved a 96 on his AP Stats test. Before you know it he will be starring in more movies.
Keep Gene Wexler is a fine actor and this movie an inspiration. Please kep this article because it opens awareness about upcoming actors.67.85.82.2 05:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Yanksox 13:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Article has been prodded, deprodded, reprodded, and deprodded (prods cannot be restored). There is concern that the subject may not meet WP:BIO youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Yousef al Khattab" -Dawkins gives 520 hits, 100 less than just "Yousef al Khattab", proving that he is not just notable due to the dawkins film. --Striver 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is unnecessary because this character has only appeared in a few Family Guy episodes. The character does not deserve his own page. Jayorz12 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already been deleted before, nothing has changed, Delete PureLegend 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Episode 4 IS being made by a third party, Valve said so.
The result was merge I have added the tags suggesting a merge. W.marsh 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an indiscriminate collection of links, and a mere collection of internal,links. Propose deletion per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Sfacets 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Love triangle. Yomanganitalk 13:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm holding a survey as to whether or not to merge the page Love rectangle into this love triangle or possibly a delete. Love triangles are obviously more popular or well known over love rectangles. The love rectangle page is also rather short and basically has the same info as the love triangle page, my vote:
The result was Keep. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood an astroturfing campaign that involves paid translations of author's autobiography.
Compare this article with the appearance and contents of this very piece on various European Wikipedias: de, pl, es, fr, hu, it, ro, ru. All these articles were created from a Molvadian IP address (195.138.119.133) that otherwise had little or no interest in contributing to Wikipedia.
The notability of this person is not clearly established; he was a local politician / ministry spokesperson, and a local scientist who, judging from the article, had published about five articles in various magazines and/or larger compilations, but has no own published books; this is perhaps more clear when you look at the references on pl.wiki. Although this is not mentioned in the article, he is the leader of Social Liberal Party (Moldova), but this party does not seem to have any notable accomplishments ("[...] in 2001 Oleg Serebrian released a manifest with the intention to found a social liberal party. This initiative was joined by the Christian-Democratic Women's League and the National Youth League of Moldova. In 2002 the Party of Democratic Forces merged into the party."; the members of the party had three seats in the parliament prior to forming this bloc).
This is our AfD vote on Polish Wikipedia. I'm just dropping by to share our findings. Regards. lcamtuf 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Born in 1969, Oleg Serebrian is one of Moldova's youngest and most promising political leaders. He has a solid background in international affairs, with a degree in international relations from the European Institute of High International Studies in Nice, France, and post-graduate work done at Harvard, Edinburgh and Paris. In the late 1990's, he worked for his country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is also the author of several books on international affairs and foreign policy, the latest being "Dicţionar de geopolitică" (Geopolical Dictionary), a 340 page tome on international politics which has just been published simultaneously in Romania and Moldova." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.56.58 (talk • contribs)
The result was Keep (interested editors may merge with Jack Abramoff). cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.
Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients and List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list has misguided intentions, exposed in the very first sentence: "Here is a list of songs that happen to be the name of a movie". This sets a bad precedent for unencyclopedic lists: Things that have the same name as other, unrelated things of no particular category. --Vossanova o< 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually came looking for a page of this specific description, for help with a small project I'm working on, so in theory, it has a valid use. Agreed that endless, coincidental matches are not useful, but certainly it's worth noting the cultural trend of titles such as "Singin' In the Rain," "Pretty In Pink," "Knock On Any Door," transferring from film to music, or vice versa. If there were a way to better define what the list was for, it could be a useful reference. --Hypersquared 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. --humblefool® 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group is not notable, article not encyclopedic, name of article too broad Vpoko 19:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as unverifiable. --Coredesat 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable article on a fantasy (film?) with no claim of notability. No Google hits bar the official website. --Scott Wilson 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what everyone is writing about there being little context and little pages being linked the the page but i have to have time to link pages to it and such like and also add context. Also i've read millions of articles on Wikipedia and some of them appear to eb more useless than this one ^^. Also A Tale Untold has been worked on now for over a year since around last winter and although only about half of Series 1 has actually been filmed we have had alot of script writing, designing, advertising and CGI work to do so in some sense i suppose that's why it's not fully notable. Please just give me some time and if you want explain want you want improved, if you need a longer description and an improved article i will happily ablige (dunno how to spell it sorry). Also i realise that there are no "Fan based websites" about A Tale Untold but 50% of the atricles on wikipedia i bet there aren't aswell. For example i looked at a few MMORPG's and searched for them and the only hits they had was on there offcial website, not fan based websites so they are still notable even without any other hits so why can't A Tale Untold have the same treatment? - Jonoridge 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional characters that attain notoriety only in one school district are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 19:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript. The topic has now been covered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 October 30#Will it fly?. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone (163.1.126.41 (talk · contribs)) initiated this AfD. I endorse this nomination, looks like nonsense to me. Ezeu 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability evrik (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no merit being on Wikipedia if it has no use outside of a small community. 75.16.218.17 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball KEEP Tbeatty 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable documentary according to the Film notability requirement. Even IMDB doesn't have a lot of details. WP is not IMDB and is not repositiry for every film ever made. This film has no claim to notability. Tbeatty 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: More Discussion on discussion page. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfD posted on 'Conspiracy Theory Noticeboard' - Noticeboard - F.A.A.F.A. 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete The article is being used as a dumpnig ground for a pirated version of the movie. A user states th eproducers put it there however there is no proof of that and further they have no right nor permission to display and show HBO content. Since the user seems determined to keep putting it back I have changed my vote to delete for the greater good of our copyright regulations on Wikipedia. --Nuclear[reply]
Zer0 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The result was keep, potential single purpose account(s) noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability of subject. --SandyDancer 16:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not indicate notability, merely the fact that it exists, has been funded, and has produced products. johnpseudo 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Húsönd 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Future album. No sources, and created by a user with a history of creating unverifiable/false content (see previous AfD discussion). Zetawoof(ζ) 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted through prod contested on DRV and undeleted. Article doesn't meet WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by admin Saxifrage (reason: unsalvagable nonsense (CSD:G1)). Non-admin closure of AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impenetrable ungrammatical bumf. There is a book cited as a source, but the article reads like the output of Dissociated press Leibniz 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected. "Boldly" means "go ahead and do it yourself". Zetawoof(ζ) 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was boldly redirected. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, not my AfD yandman 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Gkklein, type your reason here:[reply]
Article already exists.--Gkklein 20:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep content, rename or move could be possible. W.marsh 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD tag was applied here weeks ago by a single-purpose account and the nomination was not carried through. Now, the article is a CSD-A1, lacking any sort of encyclopedic context. But the editor creating it has spent lierally weeks crafting it. I don't wish to see it deleted per se, but I can't, at this moment, see what our customers (the people who read Wikipedia rather than edit it and who thus vastly outnumber the people who make changes) would make of it. So I ask for others to discuss it in a reasonable way and offer no opinion of my own.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My honest opinion As a non-expert in tennis, I must say I find a table such as this one rather useful. For better or worse, I find information assembled in a tabular format rather helpful and easier to assimilate. Admittedly, some of the features (colors, symbols) could be simplified but, all in all, I believe this article serves a useful, albeit infrequent, purpose. Carpe diem 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ill-defined term, sometimes used to refer to a multi-ethnic state. Favor deletion, merger/redirect. I don't think the article can stand alone. Deodar 20:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. GringoInChile 12:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts about whether this article meets WP:BIO and thought it should be discussed here. Being married to a notorious person doesn't make someone automatically noteworthy themselves. The only possible inkling of notoriety in her own right is the mention of her being a vocal proponent of his release; but it is not stated how much coverage has she received. GringoInChile 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; its existence may be verified, but there is no verification from third-party sources that this is a notable product. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisment for a product Rich257 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The actual band (who don't appear all that notable aside from their singer) doesn't have an article, so it makes little sense that their albums would.
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blog site that doesn't assert notability. I'd recommend it for speedy A7, except that the article's been around for a while, and [83] says it won an award, although I don't know how significant that might be. gadfium 21:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with it. - TuiKiwi
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This garage-built Gravitational Lensing Generator is obviously complete WP:BOLLOCKS. But as we all know, that alone is no reason for deletion.
So I plead: No reliable third-party sources!
Let's dissect the sources (actually external links only) given
Pjacobi 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like vandalism. Google shows no results for "gaybag recipe." Definitely not a traditional cookie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfeditor (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be advertising. The IMDB link is to Bocaranda's personal resume, not an IMDB listing. A search on IMDB's database shows no credits for Bocaranda. Google search shows that Bocaranda is very good at spreading his name around, but there doesn't appear to be any level of notability here. IrishGuy talk 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason in a nutshell: This is in all likelihood an astroturfing campaign that involves paid translations of author's autobiography.
Compare this article with the appearance and contents of this very piece on various European Wikipedias: de, pl, es, fr, hu, it, ro, ru. All these articles were created from a Molvadian IP address (195.138.119.133) that otherwise had little or no interest in contributing to Wikipedia.
The notability of this person is not clearly established; he was a local politician / ministry spokesperson, and a local scientist who, judging from the article, had published about five articles in various magazines and/or larger compilations, but has no own published books; this is perhaps more clear when you look at the references on pl.wiki. Although this is not mentioned in the article, he is the leader of Social Liberal Party (Moldova), but this party does not seem to have any notable accomplishments ("[...] in 2001 Oleg Serebrian released a manifest with the intention to found a social liberal party. This initiative was joined by the Christian-Democratic Women's League and the National Youth League of Moldova. In 2002 the Party of Democratic Forces merged into the party."; the members of the party had three seats in the parliament prior to forming this bloc).
This is our AfD vote on Polish Wikipedia. I'm just dropping by to share our findings. Regards. lcamtuf 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Born in 1969, Oleg Serebrian is one of Moldova's youngest and most promising political leaders. He has a solid background in international affairs, with a degree in international relations from the European Institute of High International Studies in Nice, France, and post-graduate work done at Harvard, Edinburgh and Paris. In the late 1990's, he worked for his country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is also the author of several books on international affairs and foreign policy, the latest being "Dicţionar de geopolitică" (Geopolical Dictionary), a 340 page tome on international politics which has just been published simultaneously in Romania and Moldova." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.56.58 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YANNAGI (Yet another non-notable antigravity invention).
No reliable third-party sources
And, without necessarily attributing reliable to them, please discard the the Podkletnov and Tajamr articles. They don't have a connection to this specific invention, they are only put into external links sections of every antigravity article. Finally, patent (granted and applied) aren't reliable sources either.
Pjacobi 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pjacobi. I've been watching this article to make sure someone didn't start adding back dubious additions, such as calling Volfson a physicist. I've flagged Phonon Maser for deletion for much the same reasons as this article (not to mention that a real phonon maser would be something very much different). Michaelbusch 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. 6,962,737 Simulated stained glass modular electroluminescent articles 2. 6,960,975 Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state 3. 5,965,897 High resolution storage phosphor x-ray imaging device 4. 5,656,814 Versatile method and device for thermoluminescence comparative analysis 6. 4,826,044 Dispenser for viscous fluids 7. 4,411,044 Cord weight pulley 8. 4,399,855 Roll type closure assembly for a window
All these patents (along with some foreign patents) are to my name only except for ##3 & 4 on the list where I am listed as a co-inventor. Most of the patents are physics-related. All the patented devices other than the item #2 were built and worked as intended.
The device of item #2, the "antigravity" Spaceship, worked too. But it cannot be demonstrated as it broke through the ceiling, the roof and flu away toward Mars. The "antigravity" Test Chamber is used by the CIA in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for questioning of the enemy combatants. The "antigravity" Phonon Maser is hidden in the secret undeground lab.
The device of item #6 was sold for many years as Colgate Toothpaste pump. The pump was very popular and sold in the millions in many different countries (the product currently sold under this name in the UK is slightly different from the originally-produced pump). Volfson,boris
Keep. Edison's remarks are thoughtful and salient. This is the sort of thing one would want in a civil forum.
In response to pjacobi: If you read the text of Volfson's anti-gravity patents, there is extensive reference to, and use of, both of the Podkletnov and Tajamr articles. Podkltnov's work was the inspiration for Volfson's. The following are directly from the "theory" page linked to his site (borisvolfson.com). Emphases added by me:
"A series of experiments, performed in the early 1990’s by Evgeny Podkletnov, reportedly resulted in a reduction of the weight of objects placed above a levitating, rotating superconductive disk subjected to high frequency magnetic fields. (“Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk YBa2Cu33O(7-x) Superconductor Below 70K Under E.M. Field”, E. Podkletnov, LANL database number cond-mat/9701074, v. 3, 10 pages, 16 Sep 1997). The drawback of the technology described in Podkletnov’s above-mentioned paper is the weakness of the resulting effect. Even though Podkletnov has reported .3%-to-2.1% weight reduction with the device described in the above-mentioned 1997 paper, many scientists point to a likelihood of error in Podkletnov’s measurements."
and
"Also in Nov. 2005, scientists led by Clovis de Matos and Martin Tajmar and funded by the European Space Agency, published a paper on their research of gravitomagnetism. They measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field in a laboratory by rotating a superconductor ring at 6,500 revolutions per minute. The scientists found that, under certain conditions, the gravitomagnetic effect is much greater than expected from general relativity. However, at just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the effect, which the scientists identified as the Gravitomagnetic London Moment, is very weak. Unlike Podkletnov who used the Type II superconductor, de Matos and Tajmar used a Type I superconductor (“Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass Inside a Superconductor”, C.J. de Matos and M.Tajmar, Physica C Volume 432, Issues 3-4, 15 November 2005, Pages 167-172). The relative weakness of the artificially-generated gravitational effect makes it necessary to consider amplification before this effect could be used in many practical applications."
Moreover, Volfson provides a well-documented path though his reasoning. See his step by step inferences from work of his predecessors: http://borisvolfson.com/GravityTheoryPaper.html.
I am not a physicist. However, I know that without imagination, physics would stagnate (and often has). It's still incomplete and confounding. We still don't have a unified field theory. Even the "standard model" has been found wanting.
I am not suggesting dumping currently accepted theories regarding gravity. Darwinian theory is also gappy, but this doesn't warrant disregarding constructive, well-supported parts -- in fact, we rely on them. We should embrace attempts like Volfson's to creativly extend existing theory, provided there is sufficient justification. (An examination of the path he provides, referenced above, would be warranted.)
Mathematics and logic have lead, in the past, to new empirically interesting ground. Group theory, for example, provided particle physicists a fruitful heuristic for empiricle research ... in spite of group theory not being an "empiricle" science. Volfson's work follows an analogous route.
Hostile arguments like some provided by other commentors contribute nothing to a search for truth and understanding, but contribute to the growing climate of incivility and to rigidity of thought. Consider the values behind the attitudes displayed. Consider allowing others to judge for themselves from the evidence he provides. If you find actual errors in the science or logic, please document them. It's more useful to offer constructive suggestions, and to avoid criticism base on mere failure to match current accepted theory. That does not provide anything fruitful.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedekind cut (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After six days, I count eight votes for deletion and three for keep. Admins, does this count as rough consensus? Michaelbusch 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the arguments given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Volfson
Pjacobi 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 20:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress. Speedy was contested, but there's very little assertion of notability in the article. Subject fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This song is simply not worthy its own page. Drew88 08:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect Redirecting for now, information seems to be in Cathay Pacific already. W.marsh 16:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another article on a non-notable frequent flyer program. Some multi-carrier ones have been kept (such as Miles & More), but this is a single-airline program, no different from Mileage Plus or SkyMiles, both of which have been deleted and redirected DB (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a copyvio from IMDb.com. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Speedy was contested, but very litle assertion of notability is made. Subject fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as an indiscriminate list. --Coredesat 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopelessly POV, and there are thousands, no, millions of texts that could be potentionally put here. What is the definition of influential? Also, influential to whom? The Western World? Muslims? Feminists? Scientists? Militants? Consumerists societies? Socialists? Daoists? Stoics? These are a drop in the bucket of the idealogies and demographics by which billions of peoples' daily lives are affected. And each group could credibly point to hundreds, if not thousands, of influential texts that espouse these lifestyles - everything from poetry by Robert Frost, to the Kama Sutra, to the Iraqi constitution. There are many notable and influential texts for sure, but the Category:Literature would probably be someone's best bet to sort through such an incomprehensible list, and even that cat has a tag on top saying "This category requires continual maintenance to avoid becoming too large." But at least that cat has a fighting chance. This list will always be POV, random, inadequate and unfathomably large to the point of inutility.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod of article about a non-notable model. No claim or evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Valrith 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author. These books are published by iUniverse...which is self-publishing. IrishGuy talk 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (as a convient excuse - real reason is spam). -- RHaworth 03:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of non-notable self-published books by Joseph Armstead. Armstead's article is also under AfD. IrishGuy talk 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I put this up for speedy deletion under the Copyright Violation category. See http://www.freewebs.com/jarmsteadsnocturnes/theconcepts.htm. Beyond that, I agree with the nominator's nomination. Hu 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another vanity article for the self-published author Joseph Armstead. IrishGuy talk 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as copyvio. Fang Aili talk 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another vanity article for the self-published author Joseph Armstead. IrishGuy talk 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. Article provides no claim or evidence of satisfying WP:BIO, nor does it provide any sources that would allow verifiability. Valrith 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. I have added the merge suggestion templates, there is probably a consensus to merge but it might be best to make sure. W.marsh 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.At the end of the final Lemony Snicket novel, The End, after the thirteenth chapter (which is when the books usually end) there is one more chapter, titled Chapter Fourteen. This serves as an epilogue of sorts to the series. Snicket formats this chapter like a whole new book...title page, copyright, etceteras. Because of this, it has been granted a whole article. As it is only one chapter, I do not believe it deserves an entire article. There is nothing about it that couldn't be succintly described in the page for The End. CyberGhostface 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clamster5 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
humblefool® 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Evidence of reliable third party coverage was not presented (see WP:WEB), as always I will undelete if some can be presented to me. W.marsh 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, original reason for nomination was "Doesn't seem to be particularly notable or meet WP:V/WP:RS/WP:WEB." Procedural nomination, please count me as neutral. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ack226 21:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus, default to Keep. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable club. Returns 409 ghits. Appears to have youth teams between under-11's and under-18's but not much else. Not in notable league. Bubba hotep 11:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSIC. Khatru2 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have sought the Cleaned Up method for the page, and I am now re-submitting it for approval. I am a fan and friend of the band.Merauder 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this while finishing my new page patrol last night, and it was marked with ((db-site)) when I checked its history using pop-ups. The Alexa rank for this site is 82,920, and hence fails WP:WEB. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article by User:Aaron kimi whose only contribution is to this article. Google hits don't give any links to a racing driver.[92] . The Hindu does list an Aaron d'souza, but he is a swimmer [93]. Should have speedy deleted, but the article is 3 days old Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
meets criteria for what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a mere list of squadrons. While only some may be notable, not all are. Additionally, this listing is available externally at [94], [95], [96], and [97]. Luke! 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is more rationale at User_talk:Dark_Shikari/Archive1#appeal_.3F. Finally, I have to disclose that I'm the one that spent quite a lot time pulling this information together.
The result was keep.--Húsönd 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was a one-time house show by TNA. It wasn't very notable at all. RobJ1981 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice kid but nn self-published author (book by Virtualbookworm publish on demand house), fails WP:BIO, few unique ghits, authored by SPA with no other edits. Tubezone 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but please see WP:CITE to cite sources in the article. W.marsh 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*delete a google search turns up only trivial mentions (i.e. "BOYFRIEND ROBOTIQUE present "English Lessons For The Foreign Artist" & "How Do You Feel" at the Market of Vain Desires...") that merely note where they are performing. There does NOT appear to be any critical review of their work. If no one in the media cares enough to review their work, how can they be notable? --Jayron32 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]