< November 7 | November 9 > |
---|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there are already seperate articles which list a franchise's characters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Laurence (talk • contribs) .
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to demonstrate that the series is "widely anticipated" as required by Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Not yet published books. --Swpb 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Not only there's a clear majority for deletion, as the arguments for keeping were hardly any relevant to the policies presented for deletion, namely WP:WEB and WP:V, which the article clearly fails. Sockpuppets and the Pokémon test did not help.--Húsönd 02:51, 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)) . |
Contested PROD with "fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable forum/website, nothing is referenced, no chance of anything being referenced", however it was contested. I wholeheartedly agree with this reasoning. I don't see any reliable independent third party sources, nor do I think there will be any. My googling has not found any as of yet. Fails the Alexa test (~190K), if that happens to be your thing. Doesn't rank highly on Big-Boards either. Delete as failing WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And now I want a copy of the page as promised by other people in this discussion and the admin. I want the copy located at the following location. User:Alyeska/Spacebattles.com Alyeska 06:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As do I. User:E. Sn0 =31337=/Spacebattles.com You know the drill. E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And where is that copy of the Spacebattles page that I was promised by nearly every person who contributed to this vote? I quite litteraly need a copy because I do not have a copy on my hard drive. Alyeska 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need it? It's unneeded WP:LC. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted as redundant (to War of the Gods) as requested by the article's creator – Gurch 23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, as it seems pointless relisting this for more participation when this isn't really a deletion issue. Anyone is free to merge and redirect without AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD Yanksox 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE into a separate section in Cledus T. Judd. There was enough of a merge desire voiced to sway me to making the least-destructive close, which is Merge rather than Delete. I did add a ((sources)) to the new section. Inclusion of the squirrel song in the Judd overloads that short article a bit with squirrel-song material... so it's not ideal. But I didn't see enough of a consensus or argument to outright delete it. Herostratus 03:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It seems persuasive that as this isn't a character, as in someone that actually appeared in the show, it shouldn't be merged into a list of characters. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without explanation, so sending to AfD. Very promotional in tone (and to the subject's corporation rather then the subject), also may be a copyvio (a release was promised on the talk page but nothing further has been done). The bare assertions of notability speak more to subject's corporation then subject (and even that is unclear and largely unsourced), so recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, a7, g12. - Bobet 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable, Vanity. Seems to have been created by Mr. Johnson himself? Gilgamesh Rex 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this was PROD'ed; however, we could vote though.
The result was delete. Dakota 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it is intended to be a how-to guide and discussion group for the design and construction of a particular class of catamaran. I prodded this and suggested WikiHow on the talk page but user found it unsuitable. Because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, I am nominating for deletion. --Dgies 03:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable group Missvain 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE and recast as a Redirect to Florida congressional elections, 2006. That article has basically the same info regarding her run for Congress as this article - in fact, more. The TV personality stuff by itself appears not to convey sufficient notability, and no strong claim was advanced that it does. Herostratus 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2006 candidate for Florida's 10th COngressional District. Not notable unless being the only Florida Federal level candidate to qualify by collecting signatures makes her notable. She is also the host of a local cable talk show (lived here 35 years and never heard of it) that gets
The result was keep. --Coredesat 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:NN/WP:NF. Zqhenz 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)— Zqhenz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
--Erk 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There's nothing to merge. Proto::type 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research Steve 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD, fails WP:MUSIC Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant and unremarkable music group Missvain 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
0 ghits for this, either hoax or completely made up. Seraphimblade 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mall, not even defunct. John Nagle 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, this article was created because the mall appeared on a list of "dead malls". But it's not a dead mall; it's alive, with open stores, although in decline. See talk page. It's just another non-notable shopping mall, though. --John Nagle 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (a7), random dicdef created to get around speedy deletion, but the article is still about a nn website. - Bobet 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to assert notability. Looks sort of like a website promotion. And no articles link to it. Anomo 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion/Conflict of interest and notability. Also in the thread [7], they laugh at the fact that they have an article present on wikipedia for such a low numbered community (100 ppl). Lincher 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate for state office, otherwise non-notable (a law student/department manager). Only refs are from candidate/party sites. Calton | Talk 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an excuse to collect linkspam and little else. A single incoming link: Vintage clothing, which should suffice. — Moondyne 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 08:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a paintball team. Only contribution of its author. Peter O. (Talk) 04:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD G4 -- Samir धर्म 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article in speedy-delete patrolling. The subject appears to not exist and is non-notable as a fictional character. Note that the previous AfD was closed early and the article speedy-deleted under CSD:G1 (patent nonsense), which does not apply to fictional entries. If the previous AfD had run its course I could have applied G4 (reposted content), but I could find no applicable speed-deletion criteria so I'm sending it to AfD. In my humble opinion (and after trying to track down this subject, real or fictional, and failing), the article should be deleted. EDIT: note that the photo of the "most respected character" is actually of Bert Williams. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A radio duo; however, the links in the article appear to be connected with the subject and not external sources. Peter O. (Talk) 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete: Why the hell would you delete this? There are plenty of wiki's for radio shows. don't listen to these haters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.96.116 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is mostly a copy of Production hybrid vehicles, otherwise gibberish. Brianhe 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - no prejudice agaimnst recreating as an actual, you know, article. Proto::type 11:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an unsourced list of (only) foreign players in one season of Turkish football merits its own article, as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, although if anyone wants to wikify and merge this somewhere, they are welcome to it. Deprodded by Kappa without a reason given. Sandstein 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Glen 06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. Non notable author of non notable book: author plus title gives 17 distinct Google hits, mostly from author's site, myspace, and amazon[8]. Fails WP:BIO Fram 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, Obviatus has less than 100 distinct Google hits[9], Obviatus + "short of the sun" returns one myspace Google hit[10]. Fram 06:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Glen 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indie movie whose only relevant GHits are from Wikipedia and mirrors. I deleted the major actors' articles under CSD A7 and bring the film and its 2 sequels (The Rejects II and The Rejects 3, Dead or Alive) here for discussion Samir धर्म 06:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the net and was unable to find any non-Wikipedia hits on any of these movies. I feel all movie references should be removed as well. Based on the description, they were a high school film project. Turlo Lomon 06:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company, fails WP:CORP. The award received (one of the 100 best VoIP providers) is not very discerning, the best 100 is quite a large group. Callcentric Accatel (the mother company) gives only 19 distinct Google hits[11] (without the mother company, you come across other unrelated companies with the same name, like a Swiss one). Fram 06:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is of dubious notability and the article reads like a résumé. Caffeinepuppy 07:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page is a perfect example of unencyclopedic information. The subject is of dubious notability and the article reads like a résumé. Users who are predominantly editing this page seem to be relying on subject's agency and promotional websites as sources. --Mike121212 08:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) — Mike121212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. --Ixfd64 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a game guide is my biggest concern here. Initally prodded, the prod tag was replaced with "This article is NOT to be used as a game guide. It is present merely for reference purposes. Any of the following information can be found in various strategy guides, magazines, and online articles published by Nintendo or other reliable third parties". But looking at some choice selections of the text I see things like..."Charge Beam can be combined with the Bomb: by charging up and then changing into the Morphing Ball, a five-drop bomb will immediately be released.", "...multiplayer levels, and is extremely well-hidden... except in the arena Head Shot, where it can be found easily.", and "This is the most effective way to kill many tough enemies in many Metroid games - particularly Metroids themselves..." i.e. things that would only be relevant to players of the game, a game guide. If someone wants to move to gaming wiki that's fine, but I don't think this belongs on the wikipedia. Mitaphane talk 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^Exactly what I was going to say. The Copper 17 11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Ixfd64 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-described independent record label with only a few artists (who themselves don't seem too famous), I'm of the opinion that notability status is dubious. Any thoughts? Luna Santin 08:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a book makes no attempt to assert its notability, but just explains its contents at length, which could be done for any book. Perhaps the page creator (who seems to be a SPA) made no effort to assert notability simply because there isn't any to assert. Google finds only 6 hits for this book [12] under its English title; under the Slovak(?) title of Lobiranje je vroče the book gets 84 hits [13], none in English. (Note that spem-group.com and spem.si are domains belonging to the employer of the author, see [14].) In both cases no links point to independent reliable sources. Therefore I lobby to delete this article. Kavadi carrier 08:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, spam Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Openly admitted (see talk page) advertising for a non-notable company working in an incredibly narrow niche market. -- RHaworth 08:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD A7 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comic makes no assertion of notability. Searching for "John and John" comic -wikipedia gets about 27k google hits, but the results are obscured by references to unrelated topics. As far as I can tell, this comic isn't published anywhere except its own site. I'll vote to delete unless someone can hunt down supporting information for the article's notability as it currently fails WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Article's only claim to notability was that subject was "award winning"; yet, such awards were never mentioned -- Samir धर्म 09:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity / advert by user:Bryancostanich. -- RHaworth 09:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::type 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no claims to notability for this comic. Searching for "Arthur, King of Time and Space" -wikipedia results in 591 results further suggesting a lack of notability. Furthermore, it hasn't been published nor has it recieved any awards. Delete as it fails WP:WEB.
Brad Beattie (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - No assertion of notability (A7) - Yomanganitalk 10:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the comic makes no assertion of notability. It hasn't been published nor has any article been written on it by a notable source, at least none that I could find in the 800 hits from the google search Twokinds comic -wikipedia. Delete as it seems to fail WP:WEB as far as I can tell. Brad Beattie (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was to delete. Redirect to 20th Century Fox will be put in its place. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article asserts no notability for the comic, nor was I able to find any. Google returns roughly 50 results for "21st Century Fox: Romantic Comedy of the Future" -wikipedia, suggesting a lack of notability. The comic's website makes no claims to having won awards or having published any materials. As far as I can see, this comic fails WP:WEB. Delete. Brad Beattie (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that a lot of reasonably long - running webcomics, with good art, have been up for deletion in recent months. Any idea what the cause of the trend is? Examples: TwoKinds(Averages about 6th on TopWebComics), 21Cf, Alien Dice(Keenspot) Bob and George, Zap!, Catharsis, Better Days... Does something have a grudge or something? And this while comics such as God mode are on the list, despite having no wikipedia page. 86.137.97.67 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::type 11:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't assert comic's notability. Would be subject to CSD:A7 if it weren't for its previous AFD. Brad Beattie (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable market research company. No references, reads like an advertisement, fails WP:CORP — Moondyne 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). No Google hits and even the Greek Wikipedia does not have an article about her. Also, there are no incoming links to the article.--ZeroOne (talk | @) 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, about some nonsense idea a schoolkid came up with one day. - Bobet 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let this speak for itself: "Las Gaavde came up with this idea when he dreamt one night, about running in the forest." Wikpedia is also not a crystal ball. Contested prod. MER-C 09:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. There seems to be nothing extraordinary about this soldier, or at least nothing extraordinary enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. yandman 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally if there is the slightest bit of encylopedic value, enough where it could possibly be useful for any kind of research, I am all for inclusion, but there just isn't anything here. Ratherhaveaheart 18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by Youngamerican as a 5-day prod. If you want to contest this deletion take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review where it will be undeleted and this debate will be relisted. --ais523 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Reason Bensonby 10:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn person
The result was speedy (in the sense that 1 pair of eyes is making the decision) close. The nominator has since simply redirected the article. The place to discuss the redirect is Talk:Merchandise to resell, of course. Uncle G 11:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is inventory Octopus-Hands 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability. Appears to be a minor actor with exposure limited to an online "mocumentary." ghits: [15] NMChico24 10:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I'd like to nominate the similar Geoff Lapaire. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This organization probably doesn't deserve its own article unless external sources are cited for it. Maybe a merge into St. Scholastica's College is appropriate. Peter O. (Talk) 05:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan-made remake of Star Wars IV. --Nehwyn 11:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think is article needs to be deleted just yet, but it does need a lot more information. What film organization is producing this movie? Where is its official website? Is it even listed on fanfilms.net? If these can be answered, then it could remain, otherwise, it should be deletedMaraJade85 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Spam Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. Nine registered users. Not many reviews. By author's own admittance, a "small" following - and also website not functioning. Was a contested speedy, so it finds itself here. Got to feel for the guys, however... Delete Bubba hotep 11:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, likely a hoax, and user removed prod without reason. Ansell 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested A7 speedy, but this is still in development so there are verifiability issues. Not straightforward. Guy 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged speedy A7 but makes a claim of notability. Seems a bit implausible, I can't find much evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Guy 12:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an attempt to promote a newly published book by creating an article about it on Wikipedia. Alf Boggis 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contesed A7 speedy, looks a lot like generic forum vanispamcruftisement but that might just be because the article is crap rather than because the subject fails guidelines. Guy 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable characters that only appeared in one film. WP:FICT and WP:NOT a plot summary applies here. Interrobamf 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Simon Garner. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Youth footballer who have never played a professional game. He is not even in the Blackburn squad. Punkmorten 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of notability, prod and speedy removed already JBKramer 12:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Bradwood Scale was devised by Eleanor BRADshaw and Callum WOOD, maths students at St John Fisher Catholic High School, Dewsury. Isn't easy when they say "delete me because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" in the first sentence? -- RHaworth 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62.252.96.16 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to Frank Lampl per MOS. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable yandman 13:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability concerns, see 1070 ghits. No assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 13:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus between merging or deletion, those who supported keeping in order to merge are free to pursue that as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable housing estate Quentin X 13:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to -eaux. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reference of name origins, let alone a reference for a part of a name. Nuttah68 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a dictionary or directory; article was recreated after previous deletion via prod on 20 Sept. 2006. --Alan Au 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 12:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I originally thought userfying this was probably the right thing to do, but the author - likely the subject - has made no other edits other than to create and fiddle with the formatting on this page. WP:AUTO violation by a a professor who doesn't meet WP:PROF; reads like the sort of bio blurb you find on college websites. Opabinia regalis 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article deals with a private American middle school that makes no real claim of notabilty. I know that there are those out there that feel that high schools are by default worthy of inclusion, but I have never seen it succesfully expanded to lower-level schools. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was close, move has been done, I'll kill the redirect (which is now irrelevant). Proto::type 11:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An editor cleaned up all the original research here a few days ago and what was left doesn't really constitute an article on Jainism and Hinduism, but instead is a fairly decent start on an article about the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill of 2006. My opinion is that there should be a Move to Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill of the content that currently exists at this namespace (with expansion warrented at the new namespace) and then Delete (which is why I'm bringing this here) the redirect as "Jainism and Hinduism" != Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill. I also want to state I have no predjudice against a new article being created at Jainism and Hinduism provided someone wants to created a neutral, sourced discussion of the religions and their history together.--Isotope23 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change name I found the article interesting and informative and fairly well scoped but not at all what I was expecting from the current name. My big question is whether this is related to christian conversions of other faiths in India. --Mike 19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. A student/youth, local branch of a political party of no notability Nuttah68 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied as a personal attack --humblefool® 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No ghits for IMSIN in that context. Maybe even a speedy nonsense candidate. Optimale Gu 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A stripper in Iowa. Completely non-notable. No entry in IMDB or rame.net, only Google hits are for Wikipedia & mirrors, and her home page. The newspaper story about her linked in the article is about how nobody has heard of her but she has a Wikipedia entry. Chowbok ☠ 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. This is not an article, but a redirect whose deletion should be debated on WP:RFD if necessary. Kusma (討論) 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I revert vandalism on this page and discovered it to be nothing more that a link. The phrase "Do Not Want" is not worthy of its own article. Not to mention the beside the vandalism and revert this page has not been edited since its creation on Auguest 11, 2006 (Steve 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, advertising AW 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Worst, most dispirited AFD ever. Proto::type 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
question notability Thamiel 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to List of state leaders in 1640s BC. Clear the articles linking to the redirect and then propose it for deletion on RfD or via me.. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate the following pages for deletion (or redirect):
I created these articles before realizing that a list for each year would be superfluous (all three articles are identicle). I moved all information to List of state leaders in 1640s BC. Donnie Love 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neogolism that seems to be not all that verifiable, and one guy's WP:OR. Contested prod. Leuko 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep it This is a new phenomenom and it will continue and more research will be forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAOSKTRL (talk • contribs)
Delete - A WP:POV WP:OR by a WP:SPA without WP:RS. =))) --Nehwyn 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected. Come on people: be bold about these things!. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary; see Vulpecula#History Ashadeofgrey 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod notice removed without comment by User:Fouadbajwa. No assertion of notability against WP:BIO. And I'd guess "conflict of interest" under WP:COI Mereda 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be obliged if a deletion be made with a procedure pasted to edit user page, that would be helpful for Mr. Bajwa. Regards A M. Khan 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (Quotes don't need merging - they're not the work of a Wikipedia author, and GFDL doesn't apply when moving them from one article to another). --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual whose article would not have been created had he not criticized Sacha Baron Cohen for his Borat performances. I would suggest merging any useful info into Kasymzhomart Tokayev, but none of this is particularly meaningful or notable, so just delete. KazakhPol 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Zaparojdik 23:16, 9 November 2006
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dicdef stub about a non-notable term. wikipediatrix 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad article on a cover of a previously released song, that can be covered on the original's page. --Jamdav86 17:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long-standing hoax article about a Scottish playright whose plays are all famous brands of cigarettes (Benson & Hedges, Marlborough Red, Kensitas). Has been tagged as a hoax before, and Colin1873 has raised it again. All relevant google hits are mirrors of WP. Mr Stephen 18:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete A7 + G10 + G1 + IAR. Luna Santin 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable or verifiable. Could not verify existence of his books. Leibniz 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That was fast!
Again and understand, wiki is not my "thing", and i claim no vested interest in this matter. I, "saintstephen", have basically been having fun with the opensource nature of the database, posting absolute facts as regards my life. Specifically, my life in the Black Magick Community. And why not. In this specific arena, I have few peers.
Out of habitual curiosity i went to the reliable source link offered and scanned the guidelines, quickly, regarding scholerly research and the like. It would seem that deletion, or amendment, could be appropo, even though thousands others are aware of various established facts within the short bio.
I, again, have no personal interest in supporting the facts further.
Have at it. We suckle at the teat of half a`dozen ivory towers.
Oh. Sorry about the snip AFD from the daily log or whatever. i dont even know what the hell that thing is. it looked like a demon at the gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadmona (talk • contribs)
I totally agree. It is pointless, vile, and borders on subversive.
delete now.
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no indication of satisfying, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A complete mess of an article, POV, lies.... The 'sources' appear to be dead links Armanalp 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed without explanation by the articles creater. Non-notable backyard wrestling organization (which is already grounds to delete), with only 6 employess. No assertion of notability either. TJ Spyke 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no claim of notability Abeg92 19:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Company does not satisfy WP:CORP AW 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced game guide for a non-notable online browser game that was deleted at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Nations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Nations (2). I'd have speedied it based on those afds if it weren't a contested prod. —Cryptic 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the game. This is a very good guide, by the author himself to a relatively popular game. It's not full of garbage, nor pointless, it should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.111.154 (talk • contribs)
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a fictional crime from a novel, which would seem to be non-notable. At best, this should be merged, but I would say this is fan cruft. Harro5 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied per csd#a7. Glen 21:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by anon. Homemade video (made on a Playstation 2) that has, per the article, been seen by "over 50 people". Not in the same galaxy with a notable movie project. Fan-1967 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable - google search shows wiki mirrors, search for Polish string "wódka Wisła" doesn't show anything notable. Seems like a hoax or an ad for some minor product, and the language is very 'addy' (much loved as a highly-regarded export vodka and a sought after drink by Poles the world over). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fully unsourced. --Nehwyn 09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep with a number of suggestions to move or merge. Please defer renaming and merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please could someone explain the important of this list to me. In my opinion, it is not notable (and nor are the vast majority of articles it links to) Computerjoe's talk 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and unverifiable topic. Fails a Google test. Also violates WP:NOT, in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Slowking Man 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (continue cleanup though, obviously) W.marsh 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely uncited and mostly unverifiable. The article consists largely of song lyrics which probably violates a bunch of copyright standards. Reads a lot like original research. I don't think this is even that encyclopedic even if it was cleaned up. Metros232 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy (already done) and delete. --Coredesat 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial. Murders of this type are lamentably common. Even the existence of memorial funds/scholarships does not confer notability Robert A.West (Talk) 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert A. West appears to have had his feathers ruffled. Because I deigned to question his continued removal of what I considered to be relevant information regarding the Daniel Brandt article he has decided to attempt to delete an article of mine.
Fact: This article is of consequence because it has since become the basis for a charitable organization with 501(c)(3) status that was created in order to inform young women about potential abusive relationships.
Fact: This article is of consequence because the Texas State Legislature will be creating a law in January '07 in her name and memory to award diplomas posthumously to students that died during their Senior year of High School.
Fact: This article is of consequence because the Texas Psychological Foundation has created a memorial grant in perpetuity of $5000 / year for Graduate work related to studying violence against women.
Robert A. West's feathers aside, it is absurd that Wikipedia articles be so capriciously and callously deleted. Drew30319 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although a memorial fund has been created and a scholarship will be created in 2007, neither of these are primary points in the article. This murder has been covered by all major networks in addition to AP and UPI.
Drew30319 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, although it does not matter with respect to the apparent direction that the article is headed, it is not just a memorial fund and scholarship. There is an actual charity that has been created. The organization is incorporated and has received 501(c)(3) status by the IRS.
Again, this isn't stated to change any minds, but for clarification.
I feel comfortable with waiting until the legislation passes to be able to add the relevant info. Thanks for the constructive information. Drew30319 02:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable county road Brianyoumans 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 10:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable protologism. Very few instances of the term on the web, and these point back to this page or the one page linked from here. Worse, there are no examples of "drugware" on either this page or the other webpages.Calbaer 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The concern is reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and none have been presented that satisfy guidelines for inclusion - neither forum posts, passing mentions, Google hit counts nor Wikipedia editors qualify, as Wickethewok and Yomangani have adequately explained. Consequently there is no reason to discount the arguments that came before Bones' posts, and consensus and policy are for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:14, 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)) . |
A web forum that seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:V. I asked for sources on the talk page awhile ago and haven't received any responses. Googling only brings up a few dozen hits not from the BZPower itself. Was previously nominated but was kept as apparently users back then didn't need to present any sort of logical argument. Anyway, the lack of independent coverage means it fails WP:V and it doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB. As is, the entire article is original research. Fails the Alexa test @ ~156k ranking if you're into that sort of thing. Delete for the reasons listed above. Wickethewok 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a list with no historical origins and is not and cannot be quality encyclopedic content.
I don't really see any good reason this article should exist. First of all, there is no evidence that such a list existed in any historical context. Secondly, there is no definitive list--it's basically a compendium of top sights lists in various travel guides. Third, many of the sites listed are not of Medieval origin (i.e., the Taj Mahal, Stonehenge, The Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa, most of the Great Wall of China, the Hagia Sophia and the Leaning Tower of Pisa--the bulk of the list).
I recommend deleting this list to avoid further confusion. Phil Bastian 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I can't be arsed to look for links it's definitely something I've heard about before and so seems notable to me (please don't turn this into Elvis' Policy however, I'd never live it down.--ElvisThePrince 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied. --humblefool® 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be hoax article with no basis in fact Scott Davis Talk 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created by user:GovBen who has only done edits relating to this article. Looks like a clear case of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Also, I suggest, not particularly notable to users outside the US. -- RHaworth 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. No assertion of notability (and not notable-sounding on its face) or citation of any sources at all; if it weren't for its claim to be several years old, a fairly clear WP:NFT. Only google hit is several entries on someone's blog [Check Google hits]. DMacks 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The original research argument is persuasive. A trivial glance at the list shows that they are overwhelmingly not verifiable by watching the episode, despite assertion to the contrary. "Jonathan tells Clark "you were meant for much more important things than winning football games". Glen Ford's Jonathan Kent, in Superman, says very similar dialogue." That presumably requires watching the episode and another film; same with every other allusion that is to another film or the comics, they rely on original research by synthesis between two primary sources. "Clark is almost always seen wearing combinations of red, yellow and blue" would require watching, well, every episode in which Clark wears one or more of the three primary colours, if not sourced to a secondary rather than primary source. This is why encyclopaedia articles must rely predominantly on secondary sources; this article is clearly reliant on primary sources and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content of this page is not encylopedic or verifiable as other than opinion. It is definate crystal ball work, as little of the content is documented as other than the editor's observations. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Slavlin 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD A7) by Herostratus. Kavadi carrier 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an attempt to contact fans of a game and direct them to a website. The website does not appear to meet WP:WEB. (The game itself does not appear notable per WP:WEB and its article is currently prodded.) This is a recreation of an article that was previously speedied; it was tagged for speedy this time, too, but that tag was removed by the author, who further added: "PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS, UNLESS YOU HAVE GOOD REASON TO (i.e. typos, grammatical errors, etc..)" -- which shows rather a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Probably still speediable, but bringing this to AfD just to be sure. Shimeru 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 10:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redundant disambiguation page. Both examples listed below are included on the main Starbuck disambiguation page. "Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)" is an unlikely search term. Users already mariginally familiar with either series would use Lieutenant Starbuck, Kara Thrace or a derivative as their search terms and find what they wanted, or be sent to the main Starbuck disambig page. BlueSquadronRaven 00:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was listed as copyvio. If someone wants to rewrite an original article on him that asserts his notability, they can use the temp subpage. Kavadi carrier 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Run of the mill academic. Most of the article appears to be a copyvio from http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/ducis/civilizations/_esack.html and http://www.quran.org.uk/out.php?LinkID=134, the latter not appearing to be a reliable source. The rest is pure WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, website with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webcomic posted by its author. 3 Google hits from two websites; doesn't meet WP:WEB. Feezo (Talk) 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]