< November 6 | November 8 > |
---|
The result was Delete. Nishkid64 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable person who supposedly founded a non-notable company, and apparantly a vanity article, that has somehow escaped notice for months. The only Ghits for "Kerru Dera" and "Kerry Dera" are from WP and its clones. "Dera, Inc." is a start up with no products and no sales. Donald Albury 00:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete all a7, no assertion of notability. Author even attempted to put the article into the new category "MySpace Music". NawlinWiki 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band fails to satisfy any criterion for notability as per WP:MUSIC. It is my first deletion nomination though, and I decided to avoid the speedy deletion process and take the safe route here. Gimlei 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD Also includes:
The result was delete. Dakota 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; albums aren't widely enough released, media coverage is little to none. Crystallina 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as it is; will move to the creator's or anyone else's userspace on request so the material which is verifiable can be sourced and merged wherever appropriate. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your help...I would love to merge this article, but am a little unsure of how to do so. Any thoughts would be welcome. Also, thanks for all of the encouraging comments. Any ideas on how to properly Wikify this would be helpful. Sixthsense1 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this back when it was just a little essaylet. Now it's a full-blown personal essay. Not badly written, but unencyclopedic and editorializing. Opabinia regalis 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term originated in one column written in the San Francisco Chronicle. It generated a minor internet meme, but does not appear to be an actual "movement" (as the article claims) covered in reliable sources. Like a lot of the Unitarian-Universalist articles, it seems to contain a lot of links. JChap2007 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very much like original research. No sources are given, I could not find anything reliable, and the overall tone supports it. Crystallina 01:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was that the nomination was withdrawn and the article kept. JChap2007 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable organization within the Unitarian Universalist Association. Many of these (like the Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--79 unique Google hits, no reliable sources) I am just prodding, but this one generates 15,000 Google hits (although I could not find a reliable source among them), so I'm bringing it here. JChap2007 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) JChap2007 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Film which doesn't seem to actually exist. 2006 is quickly coming to a close, but there's no mention of this movie existing on IMDB, nor any mention of Jessica Alba being linked to the project. fuzzy510 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Merging requires notability to be demonstrated and verified as much as keeping in its own article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only 72 unique Google hits for this (including the usual number of WP mirrors. No reliable sources cited in the article and I cannot find any either. I almost prodded this, but saw that another editor had asserted notability. JChap2007 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. --Coredesat 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability. Google returns 65 results, most of which seem to be forums or blogs. Speedy tag removed. Amarkov babble 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another minor UUA-affiliated organization not covered in reliable sources. The only citation is to its homepage on Geocities. The vast majority of the 977 Google hits for the term discuss a product with the same name. JChap2007 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Page full of rumors, nothing verifiable. The "rumored release" isn't for 3 years. Contested prod by author. Leuko 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, if you wish to make an argument for keeping that actually holds any water, you are going to have to cite sources to counter the charge that this article is unverifiable. Because at the moment the answer to the question "Says who?" when it comes to this article is little more than "Says a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor and no-one else.". Uncle G 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestling show/podcast with inconclusive Google results. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 02:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Somali Civil War (2006-present), although it looks like there may be a civil war brewing for the merge suggestion too. Yomanganitalk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Somalian War" is not an actual conflict and all the events outlined on the page are part of the Somali Civil War. – Zntrip 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed because it was previously contested, although the previously contested prod stood for 28 days before someone removed it. Anyway, no reliable sources to verify anything, and no indication of meeting any criteria in WP:WEB. Alexa ranking floating around 700,000 and very few related Google hits (after the first one and the wikipedia article, there's mostly stuff about other games of the same name, a few game directories, and an article on the war in Iraq. --Wafulz 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really bad use of lists. I can possibly see this being useful as a category, but it's not even worthy of that. No definition of what is included as a "portable e-mail appliance". Also seems pretty spam-ish. --- RockMFR 04:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article created by User:Kcli-tv. I couldn't find anything in the FCC's TV station database [8], nor could I find any third-party sources for this TV station. --Iowahwyman 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Article utilizes poor grammar, spelling, capitalization, syntax and does not seem to follow naming conventions. Information displayed is largely non-neutral POV and becomes especially worrisome—speculative and inacurrate—as it describes Spider-Man 3. No sources are cited and images are not used sparringly. While an article for the Spider-Man series of films might be nice, this is poor substitute. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 05:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:V, no references. Contested prod (two separate prods). Wikipedia is not a repository of comedy sketches. Risker 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Recreation of previously deleted page, CSD A4 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A BlackBerry user forum which does not meet WP:WEB. There are no links to the website (aside from links from its own forums) and no independent reliable sources to verify anything. Has an Alexa rank of around 40k, though I should mention it's a forum for an e-mail-based device, so the Alexa rank might be skewed a bit. Wafulz 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanispamcruftvertisement Pete.Hurd 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating both Catalin Barboianu and probability-based strategy for deletion.
Catalin Barboianu is an apparent vanity autobiography [10] written by User:Infarom. Infarom Publishing House is Catalin Barboianu's employer, and publisher of three of Barboianu's books on Poker strategy (and apparently no books other than these three). The article asserts that Barboianu is a notable mathematician, whose major work is probability-based strategy. The ISI WoS lists no peer reviewed publications for "Barboianu C*". The probability-based strategy article "phrase "probability-based strategy" appears only once in the ISI database, and refers to another concept. I can find no evidence that this is a notable mathematical concept. The concepts described in the article appear to refer to the optimization technique known as stochastic programming. In over ten years' experience with stochastic programming, I've never heard of the term "probability-based strategy" used in conjunction with these ideas. The probability-based strategy article claims to refer to game theory concepts, yet none of the material presented has any game theory relevance. In summary, I can find no support for the claims of scientific notability, or evidence that this is anything more than vanity article by an author of books on how to play Texas hold-em. Note: another article by the same author Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philosophy_of_probability. Pete.Hurd 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like nothing but a clever promotion for Atomic Creative and Tatsuya Nakagawa; see AfD talk page for details A. B. 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - for now, with most of the basis for keeping being that it's new at the moment. Next time this goes to AfD, it will have to be fully verified and otherwise policy-compliant if it is to be kept. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. --Daniel Olsen 07:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible spam, unless it's a resource page like Distrowatch.com. Keep or delete? No vote. -WarthogDemon 05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was to say sayōnara. Khoikhoi 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (by a group of single purpose accounts, as was the creator, but anyway...). Completely unverifiable, no Google hits, WP:COI concerns, and utterly unremarkable. Someone ha a few hundred books and lets other people browse them and take them home for a few weeks. This wiaas great news around 1600, but is quite commonplace nowadays. Main delete reason: WP:V concerns Fram 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-ECH3LON 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Rockpocket 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical currency reform proposed by a non-notable academic and not found outside his work. Andrew Levine 06:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is being nominated for the same reason as the Boris Volfson article. It lacks any scientific validity or widespread interest. Michaelbusch 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note on the references: the references to Nature, National Geographic, and the Telegraph only mention the patent as a failing of the patent office, not caring about Volfson personally. This is only one of the thousands of junk patents that are the patent office has passed. It deserves no particular mention, as the patent office's problems are convered in the relevant article. Final thought: we can judge scientific validity when it approaches nonsense, which this article certainly does. Michaelbusch 17:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After six days, I count six votes for delete, two for keep (one of which is Volfson), and one for merge. Admins, is this rough consensus? Michaelbusch 20:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 05:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject doesn't need a separate article. Flaming (Internet) and Troll (Internet) would be better places to mention the small amount of information presented here. In my view an article on this specific topic can only invite the creation of pointless lists of flame wars and troll activity. Robotman1974 07:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, as no reliable sources have been presented that discuss usage of the term (Google searches are not reliable sources). The article can be recreated if such sources are found; the one that is in the article at current time only uses the term and does not discuss it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable topic. Google search didn't turn out anything, and I don't think that "Arabocentrism" even exists. MB
The result was Keep and request expert help. Rockpocket 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bare assertion of notability, very few ghits. Doesn't seem a very notable entertainer. Seraphimblade 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was AfD'd months ago with a consensus to merge into Nineteen Eighty-Four, but no one has done so, and I still feel strongly that there is not enough material to bother. Nineteen Eighty-Four is long enough already, and always on the brink of cruftiness. Victory Gin itself is mentioned only a few times in the novel, and almost nothing is said about it except that it tastes awful. Delete. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That no-one has merged it after a consensus to merge is not a reason to delete it. Firstly, the nominator xyrself could have merged it. Secondly, there is an argument against merger on the article's own talk page, making a case that all of the various "Victory" items — Victory Gin, Victory Cigarettes, Victory Coffee, and so forth — are better discussed in a broad scope article on "Victory" items in 1984 (which some have described as "total parallels of freedom fries"), which have been written about by the world at large. Again, that neither the nominator nor anyone else has yet taken it upon themselves to follow that idea through, or even to reply to the suggestion on Talk:Victory Gin even though they've had six months to do so, is not a reason to delete this article.
AFD is not a weapon to force mergers to be done that one wants done, and when renominating it is a good idea to show that one has at least read the suggestions for refactoring that came out of the prior discussion. An administrator hitting the delete button doesn't get us either the aforementioned merger or the aforementioned refactoring. Keep. Uncle G 13:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - AfD isn't needed for minor facets of obviously encyclopaedic subjects like this, they can simply be redirected to the subject which actually merits an article (i.e. the album article). --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Provides no information not present on Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, doesn't require its own article Seraphimblade 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable hip hop music producer and occasional performer. Would have prod-ed this, but this genre of music is not my speciality, so bringing it here just to be safe. Few ghits, and a good proportion of those seem to be based off of this page [12] Lankiveil 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, so kept by default. - Yomanganitalk 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A verifiable but non-noteable tract of land in Karachi, Pakistan. The Google test presents 219 results, the top two being Wikipedia. The remaining articles are links to real-estate sites, definitions of "Rabia City", lists of bus routes and other local information, or unrelated links. Karachi makes no mention of this neighborhood, and Gulistan-e-Jauhar makes cursory mention of it three times. Aside from being a large residential neighborhood, it appears to have no specific notability. Per WP:LOCAL, this article contains none of the "should have" content, consisting only of "should not have" content. Compare this page to Napier Road, another neighborhood in Karachi, which makes a specific argument for its notability. Consequentially 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested ((prod)) brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced nonsense based on nationalistic sites such as: [15] [16] •NikoSilver• 11:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep; although a case for merge and redirect was presented, it failed to gather concensus during this AfD discussion. If anyone feels the merge and redirect option requires more discussion, please use the articles' talk page. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A card in the game of Monopoly. OK, so maybe it is mainstream enough to be a metephorical idiom in English, but I don't think that is enough. I was going to redirect it to References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture or even to Monopoly (game), but thought the best way to deal with it was having it deleted.
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to this [22] he is just a student and as it was said in the previous deletion procedure, being the son of somebody notable isn't an assertion of notability of the person himself Optimale Gu 13:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: deleted and redirected to Joshua, per WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this article is supposed to be about, but it seems to be a duplicate of Joshua, Yeshua, Yeshu, and/or Jesus. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP, nomination withdrawn. Fram 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable academic Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Prod tag removed by anon editor. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly non-notable, if not a hoax or joke. No GHits outside Wikipedia and clones, no sources, no evidence that there is more than one "member" of this "party", who happens to be the article's only contributor. Prod replaced with a message asking people to join the "newly created Egalitarian Socialist Party". Violates WP:ORG, WP:V and WP:NFT, probably among others. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 14:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN, self promotion, Google gives 1 result for "Kevin Hatfield"+DDOS, 0 results for "Kevin Hatfield" DOS-Eliminate Optimale Gu 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a search for 'Kevin Hatfield Green Dragon' http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kevin+hatfield+green+dragon&btnG=Google+Search
Returns 64,000 Hits
The result was CSD, bio. 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Fails WP:BIO. Seems to have slipped past new page patrollers, otherwise it's pretty much a speedy. Various vandalistic additions in the 3 days since it's been online. riana_dzasta 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.A.L.-E.. Continuing arguments for deletion following each 'source' indicate that we aren't ready to have an article on this yet. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This film has not been officially announced. The only information about the film has appeared as rumor on blogs, with each mention all referencing the other blogs that talk about the rumor. This is similar to when the W.A.L.-E. entry was removed for lack of anything factual to support the page. SpikeJones 14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect it if you like. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion - subject of article is non-notable, appears to be purely a discussion board frequented by far-right activists in Malta. Worthy of a mention in the Imperium Europa article, but no need for a separate stub article. --SandyDancer 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
typical of wiki, a total joke. vm does not need any damn links from wiki. we have enough hits and don't need any from here. we are one of maltas top sites. i added an article on vm to stop the inevitable slander fest that occurs on this site before it inevitably spreads further. anyone with a difference of opinion is not allowed to express it here as it is simply a haven for liberal leftists. this as usual is an unjustified attack on right wing sites just as slander of Norman Lowell is allowed.
i will be posting an article on this matter on the vm front pages and maybe spreading it to other news sites too.
vm and ie are two different movements. IE is directed towards europe and vm towards malta. we do however discuss converging views. IE is a static site whereas vm is a dynamic news one. just because there is a link to vm in the IE article is irrelevant. one would not call the European peoples party and the British conservative party as the same thing. same applies to IE and VM.
this is censorship at the end of the day and you all know it. slander is allowed on the ie and Norman Lowell articles but a balanced account with full citations on vm is not what this community wants.
PS. above it is written that this is a debate. what debate? a few people all agreed to delete vm and it was. no opposition was allowed!
The result was keep. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information -- specifically a directory or a TV/Radio Guide (these articles are one, or both) -- despite the level of utility of the articles, they are not within the guidelines of what should be included in Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. Articles are all grouped together due to content and style. If not a "guide", then definitely a simple directory -- either way, violates inclusion policy. /Blaxthos 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:08, 13 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)) . |
Non notable "catchphrase" (title of article), rest is original research and/or not directly related to the catchphrase, but to the movie. COntested prod, some elements improved, but main problem stays. WP:OR, non notable, the phrase seems not to be discussed (annalyzed, remarked, ...) anywhere. Fram 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE What is the matter with you people? Have you had too much 'bitchly cow corn'? Never have I experienced so much outrage on such a simple article. Merely published to highlight some of the better scenes, as a fan of the movie, I would have thought there would be some degree of appreciation for my efforts. Whereas many internet users have complimented me on such a moving and interesting article, it was inevitable a minority of miserable readers would complain. Frankly, what would Annie Wilkes say? something along the lines of "What is the matter with you people?"...I suspect. For clearly making an 'oogie mess' of her legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiman89 (talk • contribs) November 8, 2006
DO NOT DELETE It's is not I who have taken this issue to personally. In constructing this article, I took great care in to adhering to any regulations that govern the quality of articles submitted in to Wikipedia. The points I have chosen to highlight in my article are fact based, so it utterly baffles me as to how 'some' people still choose to dispute the truth. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but certainly FACTS are undisputable, and it was my assumption that Wikipedia is suppose to be FACT BASED. So perhaps those who moan about their own interpretations of the movie, can post their offensive comments on a chatroom ELSEWHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs) 10:32, November 8, 2006
Not quite sure if there are any merits to contributing articles on Wikipedia. Having done some research, it appears that some of those who have left comments on this page are regular pariticpants in so called controversial Deletion Drives. I am very disappointed that these narrowminded 'bullies' are permitted to continue their witch hunts and try to kill off articles prematurely. I am truly disgusted...though I refuse to be disparaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs)
Credit, where it's deserved And I quote "Not here to have an article about everything that exist, no matter how minor",...well for a 'minor' article, there certainly has been alot of controversy. I suppose it is beyond some people to not have an orgasmic chill over everything. I feel defending this article is almost a lost cause. I suppost a perfect comment to describe the animosity against this article would be Clark Gable's famous phrase from 'Gone With The Wind'..but oh wait, maybe that phrase isn't notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs)
The Author The anonymous person (with IP Add 161.74.11.24) is me, the author...I had no intention of masking my identity, merely as I do not sign in everytime, I leave a comment. But if you were to have read the comments by Samuraiman89 (Author) and Anonymous, you should realise the conistency and continuations of the same points made. Such immature behaviour as 'Socking' is very unlikely to be adopted by myself over such a trivial issue as this article.....after all, we're not exactly arguing about the merits of world peace, or some deeply important goverment inituative. Cockadoodi Car indeed.
I am an avid reader of Stephen King Novels, and with Misery being my favourite of them all, I was utterly disappointed to find out that people were petitioning for this fantastic and humorous article to be deleted.
As a journalist for an independent magazine, in which the fantastic phrase 'Cockadoodie Car' was voted the No.1 most memorable phrase in a Stephen King novel (with It’s ‘can you float?' coming in a close second), I believe that all fans of the novel and movie should be able to express their own personal views and interpretations of the depiction of the Annie Wilkes character in any way, shape or form, and wherever they wish, and that is exactly what the author of this article has done. I personally think that it is utterly repugnant, revolting, vile, nauseating and absolutely appalling that some people would rally together and demand that this article be deleted. Once again I must state 'repugnant'!!! Wikipedia is a place for people all over the world to share knowledge defined as ‘the fact of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association’. With this definition in mind I believe that the author has done nothing wrong as everything that is stated in the article was something gained through the experience of reading the book or watching the movie. Nothing mentioned in the article has been falsified they are all of fact, and I am sure they were not intended to disparage the character in question. This article is merely a description of certain scenes depicted in the movie, and I think it goes without saying that Kathy Bates did not receive an academy award for her performance in this film for nothing.
What era are you people living in, the Puritan era? Is this a remake of the classic Salem witch hunts? I’m half expecting for you all to demand that the author be burned at the stake (along with the article)? Once again I must state ‘repugnant’. This kind of bullying will not and shall not be tolerated. If the author of the ‘Cockadoodie Car’ article had made false statements leading to a false representation about the book or film then I would see the need for this cause of action. But I have read the book and watched the film a countless number of times and the phrase is fundamental in describing the mental state and actions of Annie Wilkes.Oh the misery 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)M. Patterson[reply]
Irishguy I suppose everyone who supports my article is suppose to be an alternate version of me? Please do get life! I have better things to do, then to assume mutliple personalities to support a trivial article, such as that of a goddamn Cockadoodi Car. Nerd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiman89 (talk • contribs)
More than happy to obilge, but I do not appreciate meritless accusations.
If she were here, she would be expected to object based on Wikipedia criteria. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No actually, if she were here, should would probably clonk everyone over the head with a typewriter, for trying to sabotage an article about her". As Ling Woo would say "I'm getting bored".
Is that a positive response for my article? "Sniff, Sniff"
The result was delete, with no credible third-party sources presented, or any other attempt to address the reasons for deletion (specifically failure to meet WP:SCHOOL or any other sensible critierion for notability). Only real arguments for keeping presented are precedent (which does not exist on Wikipedia) and the fallacious WP:INN. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, nothing on Google. AfD instead of prod to ensure lack of systemic bias. - crz crztalk 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article or the links to suggest that this is a notable spoof/website/blog/social commentary. Deli nk 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a borderline case for deletion, I think. It could become notable, but at the moment the subject is being discussed only on its originating website, and on NASA Spaceflight. I am concerned that this is being put across as more than what it is, which is a grassroots proposal having no official support. It has been listed in categories such as [Category:NASA] and [Category: Space Shuttle program], which is clearly inappropriate. I have removed these, but may have missed other instances. MLilburne 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, if true. "Joy Piontak" returns 4 ghits, and including Dr. brings it down to 0. Piontakism returns none, either. Also, we're still in the early 21st century, so how someone would know what happens later is beyond me. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Prod tag removed by anon editor. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band was actually quite notable at the time, was recorded by well known producer Steve Albini, opened for a number of major acts, was played on MTV and various radio stations, influenced a variety of post-punk Chicago bands of the era, and is worthy of inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.205.130 (talk • contribs)
The result was keep; move can be discussed further on the talk page of the article, however there is no concensus for it to occur from this AfD discussion. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del nonnotable neologism, original research and unverifiable information from non-serious websites: blogs, yahoo groups, etc., arbitrarily interpreted. Not a single reputable reference. Of course, sex and hyphosis is a long history, by syrens are in no way hyphofetishism. If exclude wikipedia, only 173 unique google links, a majority of which are totally meaningless. `'mikkanarxi 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO No claim of notability is made sufficient for inclusion within Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. Brimba 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Splette :) Talk 17:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
may not meet standards for band article; possible conflict of interest; contested proposed deletion. No one objected during the proposed deletion waiting period, but Virabhadra objects now, so I undeleted and listed here. Note that he refers to the band as "we," hinting at a personal interest. According to the article, the band has not released its debut album and is on an indefinite hiatus. ➥the Epopt 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - not the most cast-iron case for keeping, but there is barely a nomination for deletion either, with barely any attempt to dispute that the subject is notable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please can nominators and participants keep an eye on AfD tags, because this one was removed today and not put back. If AfD tags remain absent for significant periods during the AfD, the AfD is invalidated. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Takis Tsoukalas is a controversial person and leader of Olympiakos hardcore fans. He is offensive towards to other Greek teams of fans and likes to humiliate them. This article lacks the quality to be a wikipedia article (totally unimportant content, non-wikified), has controversial content, it is not neutral. Also, it is vandalized many times by IP users, and its quotes are insulting (quotes which are not translated correctly and have sexual connotations or threats) . I can see no reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. KaragouniS 17:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) KaragouniS 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be deleted. And on another note let's keep this discussion amongst greek people here, as only they have any first hand experience with the issue. That goes to tony, who does not seem to be familiar with the issues at hand yet diligently, albeit incorrectly puts forth his opinions. A marginal figure on greek trash tv should be the least item to be considered for wikipedia inclusion, and it's presence here only makes a mockery out of the essense of this encyclopedia, which I suppose is the intented goal, that and an inside joke. Had greek tv, or greek journalism been included in an extensive survey here I could consider this for inclusion. But letting this in as is we are opening the flood gates for who knows what to be included in the encyclopedia, next thing you know this becomes an outlet for anyone's self agrandasing prospects. Notability, and that agains goes out to tommy, is clearly not met here, unless of course we broaden the term as much as to include anything and everything and ultimately nothing at all. My two cents as a very frequent user and contributor here, despite my lack of a user account, for personal issues. 62.38.23.26 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some people don't seem to understand what Tsoukalas is, but just listen to us who see his (ugly) face every day. THIS GUY IS A HOOLIGAN, who tells children and teenagers to go and hit other team fans. He is considered the most hated person in greek football and in greek tv. EVEN OLYMPIAKOS FANS HATE HIM. IF you don't believe what i say, please ask any greek you know. It's a disgrace for this fantastic encyclopedia to include his name. He does not deserve it, guys. And you'll see that many people agree with me, in Takis Tsoukalas Talk Page ---- KaragouniS 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a somewhat misleading page. I had to read the whole article to realize that this individual has accomplished absolutely nothing notable. All of the biographical info has been in the article since the page creation by a user named FrankSchmuck. The only real page that links to it is a disambig of "schmuck". He has performed no act that seperates himself from every other military officer in the history of the United States. A g-search returns 224 hits, including Wikipedia (No. 1) and its mirrors as well as various "schmuck" insults to other people named Donald. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison --Amists 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Law professor who has served as Dean of Law in his department at the University of Newcastle, Australia which is not (as far as I can tell) recognized as a leader in the field. Probably a fine individual but no indication that he comes close to meeting WP:PROF and there does not seem to be any reliable third-party sources discussing his achievements. Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious concerns about this being made up in school one day. i kan reed 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not assert notability of the school per WP:SCHOOL. None of the 36 links I've looked at tell me there's anything special about this school. Since this article is no more than a directory listing, I propose deletion. Kavadi carrier 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor naming issues aside (there is no such thing as "Cal Berkeley"), my understanding is that individual campus political groups are non-notable, as per their opponents, the (also inappropriately named) Berkeley College Republicans (AfD) and various other prior AfD's (see Republicans, Democrats). Otoh, the "Smart Ass" might deserve its own article per the California Patriot. ~ trialsanderrors 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I must note that the arguments "there are other towns like this with articles" and "this means that there are lots of similar articles to be created" are both not reasons to keep/delete - the former is only applicable if the precedent article has gone through AfD, and then it is only a persuasive precedent; and the latter was disapproved by Jimbo Wales through pipermail to not be a reason to delete any article from Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Should either be deleted or re-directed to Randolph County, Alabama. Drennleberrn 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was boldly redirect. --humblefool® 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not much information given м info 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. This is Articles for deletion. It is not Wikipedia:Duplicate articles nor Wikipedia:Requested moves. Remember: When you see duplicate articles, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first port of call. Uncle G 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a copy of Sachiya Mata Temple article. Probably, I think it is done to move article Sachiya Mata Temple to Sachiya Mata. If that is the case, I agree that correct name of Sachiya Mata Temple article would be Sachiya Mata but it is important that edit history of 'Sachiya Mata Temple article should be retained.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college football player; only claim of fame is a medal he won for making a good catch. I'm from Alabama, I'm a football fan, and even I haven't ever heard of him.Drennleberrn 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Template Master 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AfD debatesCategory:AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
Keep It seems reasonably notable. An ESPY is a basis for notariety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy delete, patent nonsense/attack page. NawlinWiki 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite grand assertions of notability, there are only 12Ghits for subject. Probable hoax. Moreschi 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteworthy renamed/extinct organisation, and the article appears to be part of a widespread effort by User:Graham-hesketh to promote his article about Fiona Mont, and a YouTube video about her situation; without wishing to judge that situation, this article (amongst others) appears - in Wikipedia terms - to be spam and/or vanity, even if nobly-intentioned. Daview 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article only weakly asserts notability, and "Madhumita Datta journalist" gets only 23Ghits. Clearly non-notable. Also vanity, judging by username of the SPA who created the article. Moreschi 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 or A7, take your pick. -- Steel 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent corporate advertising/PR/SEO job Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been edited to remove 'spammy' references, and should not be deleted. --By97aa 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus - notability established by a Tripod site and a Google search? Doubtful - Tripod sites are self-published by definition and very unlikely to be reliable. But challenging assertions to notability is the responsibility of those arguing for deletion, and there hasn't been enough participation here to reach a consensus. AfDs like this should not prejudice against future attempts to gain a real consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unless you are impressed by things like "initiated three people into the 7=4 level." Leibniz 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as per comments of User:Kavadi carrier. Changed to weak keep in light of establishment of notability by User:Tonywalton Xdenizen 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Mike 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as ((db-nonsense)). (aeropagitica) 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very bad joke. See Semi-empirical mass formula.--NHSavage 19:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only evidence provided is a mere listing in the GameSpot database, with no substantive coverage, which fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). When reliable sources are provided, the article can be recreated. Dancter 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Indications of a consensus for merge, so I've added the tags. W.marsh 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be iffy in terms of notability. The claims it makes do not assert notability in themselves. Article should be clarified, expanded, or deleted. i kan reed 08:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress. Has apparently had only one role. No entry in IMDB. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding Talk 21:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
* Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers5 * A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following * An independent biography5 * Name recognition
* Commercial endorsements
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete boutique investment banking firm. Lost one-third of its staff in the WTC during 9/11, firm not otherwiise notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Memorial pages already exist for its staff victims here. Ohconfucius 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Sleepyhead 10:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable location, 13 unique G hits. Was previously de-prodded. Fang Aili talk 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion, those who argued for the article to be kept in order to be merged are free to pursue that as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails all points of WP:WEB. Being the largest xxx forum in xxx country is not enough to be notable. --- RockMFR 20:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns re: WP:BIO. The subject of the article runs a large number of websites complicating WP:V. The sources given in the article are mostly http://www.askdrshah.com/ MidgleyDJ 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~
. Thanks! Kavadi carrier 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]The result was Speedy delete, complete nonsense. Guy 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straightforward dictionary definition, and as such inappropriate per WP:NOT. It also seem to be of dubious notability: the Google hits for "To peen" [42] all point elsewhere, and the Ghits for "To peen flirt" aren't exactly promising.[43] Even without notability concerns, this is just a straightforward dicdef. Moreschi 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, no substantial reasons presented for keeping (the inclusion of other articles is not a claim to notability). --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert the importance or significance of the subject -- ßottesiηi (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect. High-grossing films are not permitted to buy off Wikipedians. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those characters have only appeared in one film, and their articles are simply redundant summaries of plot. Specifically, WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." and WP:FICT: "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." Other problems include sourcing and in-universe prose. Interrobamf 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The only deletion argument of relevance is Mikkalai's, because he was the only one to address the work done by Soman; consensus among those that have kept up is clearly for keeping. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I will not be able to answer is the following question:
--Soman 10:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepSoman has shown that the group existed in some form. However, I don't think one can be sure they were in the USSR, they may well have been in Albania or in both places.FasterPussycatWooHoo 11:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No-one appears to be challenging Mereda's point that there are no indications that the subject has been covered by reliable third party sources, no other substantial claim that the subject merits coverage in an encyclopaedia. (If being 20 years old is a claim of notability, where's my article?) Google hits and WP:USEFUL are also non-criteria. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From PROD, where the reason given was "Non-notable local organization, fails WP:ORG." It's been around for 20 years, though, so I think I'd like AfD to take a look. -Splash - tk 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be original research. The topic doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, and Mediation already covers the relevant portions in a less essayish style. Shimeru 10:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following articles by the same author for deletion, for the same reasons:
The result was keep - once third-party sources are found, those arguing for deletion need to at the very least say whether their concerns are met. They didn't, so until adminship comes with telepathy, I'm forced to assume that they are. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be non-notable spam and fails WP:WEB. Tarret 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forrest Higgs and Brosis Innovations
This is a malformed nomination by User:88.111.213.77 (who placed the contents directly onto the AfD page). Corrected here. ColourBurst 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi People!
Just to set the record straight.
Yes, I did write the short biography and the little entry about my consultancy. If that is forbidden, then by all means we must remove the entries.
In fact, I did the entry when I was working on the RepRap article some months ago so that the RepRap article "People" section would have something to link to. I didn't really have any motive beyond that. As you can see both of the entries were very brief and to the point. As well, they've not seen much change since their posting.
None of the other intentions that I've seen suggested in your guidelines, viz, self-promotion, business seeking and the like were in the least intended or real. I have a full consulting load and am not seeking either new business or new customers. I'm also approaching the end of my career rather than it's beginning, so I'm not really very interested in self promotion, either.
You noticed that my "company" website is a mess. It certainly is. It was last active in the late 1990's and I just reinstituted the domain. Just why, I'm not completely sure since the domain really has no point. The old, old main page is partially up. It's not commercial and it needs a rewrite, something I haven't had time to attend to, since I stopped doing text mining consulting a long time ago.
As I have said, I had no ulterior motives in doing the entries for my name and little company beyond making links for the reprap article. If this warrants their being deleted, fine. If there is something that wants doing so that the entries can be brought up to an acceptable Wikipedia standard, I would certainly appreciate a little help in that regard.
Thanks,
Forrest Higgs aka plaasjaapie
The result was no consensus - knowledge management is a nebulous concept, to put it mildly, and to justify the deletion of articles like these needs a much clearer consensus over whether the British Standards Institutions 2004 Report is enough to base an article like this on. This AfD should not prejudice future attempts to gain clearer consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like WP:OR. Previously prodded but tag removed, so AfD. Hawaiian717 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is
"The understanding and practice of Knowledge Management has been growing rapidly throughout the public sector over recent years. Yet a constant comment from existing and nascent public sector KM practitioners has been that, until now, most of the analytical literature concerning Knowledge Management has sought to understand and explain it within a mainly private-sector context. There has not been a single, easy-to-digest national study that objectively and specifically analysed the growth of KM in the public sector and thereby set out the evidence-based public sector context within which Knowledge Management can add value to the work of public servants. The British Standards Institution, through this Guide to Good Practice, has sought to plug this important gap."
--Joe McCrea 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page on minor characters from a cartoon called American Dragon: Jake Long. There already exists a page List of secondary characters in American Dragon: Jake Long, which should be sufficient per WP:FICT. Skittle 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page does not appear to be any more than an advert Ringbark 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: A reason for involving British people is most definitely not the one that you have (Notability is not subjective. Wanting more subjective opinions leads to a bad encyclopaedia.), but merely that British people will be able to locate and to cite the necessary published works more easily. Uncle G 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been shown the criteria that apply. Stop making fallacious arguments, and work towards showing that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. If you don't, and simply continue making fallacious arguments, you won't make a case for keeping this article. Uncle G 02:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. GringoInChile 09:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, poorly written substub ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 16:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badly-defined, limitless, list with no real purpose. May be considered listcruft. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - I'm happy to restore the material to userspace if needed, but I don't see why the article would be needed to write something about the organisation in another article. This article is two sentences and a simple statement of what the organisation is, half of which is quoting the organisation's motto. As it stands the article does not even assert notability as required by speedy deletion criteria. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:04, 14 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)) . |
Non-notable organization not covered in reliable sources: none cited in the article, Google turns up 89 unique hits [57], none of which is an independent source for establishing notability; Google News gets 0 hits [58]; Google Books turns up 1 hit that mentions this organization, in the "about the author" blurb of a book unrelated to the topic. [59] I contacted the initial editor on his talk page about this. Our conversation can now be found on the article's talk page. JChap2007 22:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of importance, hopelessly unencyclopaedic. Guy 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT indiscriminate information, listcruft. The Kinslayer 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This webcomic has not been published, has not won any awards and is not distributed through any notable means. As such, it fails WP:WEB. Furthermore, a quick google test shows a total of 554 hits, indicating a lack in notability
For reference, see the first AFD for this article. Brad Beattie (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG - insufficient notability to justify an article. Unlike the US, UK university sports have no inherent notability. BlueValour 23:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was qualified for speedy deletion under A7, but doesn't qualify, because the notability of this actor is asserted in the plays and in the award(s?). I'm sending it to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source, Israel News Agency, which is a propaganda outlet not a news agency. No evidence of actual significance. Guy 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy deleted this before, it was recreated and tagged for speedy again, and Enochlau untagged it this time. Far be it from me to get into a wheel war, but I still think its intention is to be an ad and it does not satisfy WP:CORP. Chick Bowen 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Picaroon9288 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. --FireV 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
notability. No signifigant contributions to the discipline Thamiel 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
looks like completely unsupported original research to me —Hanuman Das 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this article should stand separate from Mystery religion is another matter. Uncle G 01:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination only. AfD initiated by Thamiel (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep AfD is not the place to propose merges. Kavadi carrier 02:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we had an article for every time a game series debuts new characters, Wikipedia would be flooded with articles. This is fancruft, plain and simple. This should probably be merged with a F-Zero characters list. RobJ1981 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep AfD is not the place to propose merges. Kavadi carrier 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another F-Zero fancruft article. Many characters debut all the time, it doesn't mean they should have articles about it. Merge into a F-Zero characters list. RobJ1981 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]