< October 13 | October 15 > |
---|
The result was Transwikied to sep11:James Debeuneure --Konst.ableTalk 11:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Victims of terrorist attacks are not in and of themselves notable. Lankiveil 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, spam, fictional radio station. Kuroki Mio 2006 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The first AfD discussion for this article can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBXO (result was Delete)
18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The result was Lots of Keeps - This article is going to be kept anyway, there is no need to sit here examining each others' motives. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based on a fictitious term Anti Hindu and its authors have tried to invent a term creating a parallel to Anti-Semitism - pls. note the (ism) ,Holocaust and possibly Islamophobia which are the terms with a lot of academic debate.An article by this name should be suitable for wiktionary being an adjective and not a noun.The issues discussed in this article could possibly be transferred to another article Persecution of Hindus, if they have not already been discussed there.An article like this is merely repetitive and maliciously put in to highlight a particular point of view Hindutva - the right wing Hindu religio- Xenophobe movement in India and increasingly abroad and should not be allowed a second to sit on the academic space of Wikipedia. TerryJ-Ho 00:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Note on Note
Attacks on members of the Hindu minority
Hkelkar 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of the article
: The reason why this article is put for deletion is the fact that the term Anti-Hindu falls under the ambit of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (along with some topics that would typically be found in an almanac).Hence, articles should consist of encyclopedic information about "notable" subjects.
- Attutudes of bigotry against Hindus is a notable subject. I believe that trying to delete this article is a bad faith nom by this user in order to promulgate the "religio-Xenophobic" Islamist bias.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that the article has been around for months.Why, all of a sudden, this AfD?Particularly after TerryJ-Ho and his Muslim Guild buddies lost a mediation dispute regarding anti-Hindu prejudices of Tipu Sultan??Not a coincidence and a bad faith nom.Hkelkar 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- [Any article that simply defines a word, or short phrase, as you would find in a typical dictionary, and that can't be expanded into an encyclopedic entry, should be contributed to the Wiktionary sister project]' from Wikipedia's policies [2]
- There could of course be an article on Systematic Prejudice against Hindu religion like any other religion.
- This is it.But it's more than bias. It's a polemical hatred expressed in hoax books like Haqeeqat (protocols of Zion for Hindus) and others.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Non-notability of this article or rather the term can be gathered from the fact that the definition of Anti Hindu does not come from any sources but is an invented one.Compare this to Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism who discuss the semantics and origins of the term in the very first paragraph.
- See links below for the notability of the term.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO - the terms Anti-Muslim,Anti-Christian,Anti-Jew and Anti-Hindu should all point to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia whereas the academic terms Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia along with wider articles on Systematic bias against religions should exist on Wikipedia.
- Well they don't, neither should this.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is of course a large element of bias in this article as the concept is built upon Hindu Action Forum sources while the some examples are indeed built upon news sources but do they discuss the concept of Anti-Hindu or Anti-Hinduism or Anti-Hinduness?? Many of the articles from independent sources discuss persecution of Hindus and not biases against Hindus including the one from US State Department and Amnesty International's BANGLADESH
Attacks on members of the Hindu minority
- They do discuss anti-Hindu views in addition to the persecution of Hindus.The refs discuss prejudices against Hindus that lead to persecution.The former is used as reference material.Hkelkar 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Martinp23/Desk Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Hkelkar .Hkelkar 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index-print.shtml http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/hindus.htm http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71443.htm http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA130062001!Open http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2310359.stm
All of them are notable and describe anti-Hindu views and attitudes.Hkelkar 01:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Frankly I do not know how to react to this AfD. Personally I am so utterly disgusted I could retch. TerryJ-HO is deliberately conflating the issue of Hindu Nationalism with the hate and bigotry against millions of Hindus who have nothing to do with any goddamn nationalist movement.Many anti-semites also conflate the issue of anti-semitism with the issue of minority Jewish Fundamentalism, does that mean antisemitism should also be put up for AfD?This is utterly disgusting!Hkelkar 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
anti-majority rule premises." This hardly suggests that the term is in widespread use. Please note that I do not object to the content of the article, but the name strikes me as something of a neologism. Also, dont lose your shirt. If you have put work into editing the article, and your edits are sourced and NPOV, the work will not be lost. Hornplease 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7 and a1. Not listed on IMDB. NawlinWiki 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously unnotable actor, ridiculously written article. Speedy tag was removed twice even though it's rather clearly an nnbio candidate, so I'm taking it here. My vote is Delete, of course. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I have imaginary friends. They're real people, I just like to imagine they're my friends. the wub "?!" 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is woefully junked. It is devoid of any encyclopedic worth at this point and serves only as a playground for rampant vandalism and attacks at religion and anyone's favorite 'make them an invisible friend' subject matter. ju66l3r 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) The correct tools for the job have been given to me below. Thanks everyone. ju66l3r 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article starts with a negation - it hardly has a chance of developing further at least till a further few years.The contents described could adequately be covered in a larger article on Hinduism. TerryJ-Ho 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local politician, see guidelines at WP:BIO Ronnotel 01:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BIO:
Lali Watt has not received significant press coverage - just some minor mentions in connection with a zoning issue she was involved in. Ronnotel 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page that contains only self-references and cross-namespace links. Khatru2 01:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment this article constitutes vanity/promotion. They have been mentioned by a few reasonably high profile people, but this alone does not make them notable, therefore the article should be deleated.
Of course if they do ever become notable i.e. by releasing a charting single/album and winning awards etc. then the article could be remade at this point. Hgiffy 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per unanimous consensus. Eluchil404 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable business. Doesn't have any references, doesn't pass WP:CORP. Probably should have been speedy-deleted per ((db-spam)), but the speedy deletion was declined[4], and the prod was removed [5], so no choice but to proceed to afd. --NovaSTL 02:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by JesseW. MER-C 05:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was holy stub keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination; AfD tag was placed on article without follow-through. No comment from me. ... discospinster talk 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deizio talk 13:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable scanlation group, does not meet WP:WEB. They translate the One Piece manga into english, a couple other minor series, and... that's it. Precedant supports this deletion, as the Dattebayo fansub group (they do Naruto, a far more popular series) had their article previously deleted. It's also unreferenced and probably unreferenceable. tjstrf 04:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Grandmasterka. MER-C 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I hold to my original argument that this is a non-notable forum that fails WP:WEB; even the article admits it's small and "growing". Crystallina 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:NOT soapbox 2. Self-promotion 3. Advertising of their website Overlap.org, 4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Internet guides, 5. WP:COI Editing from too close "little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, no verifiable notoriety given 6. NPOV, 7. style, 8. unreferenced Widefox 04:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- Hoary 05:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a joke. Fg2 04:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. theProject 23:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:NOT soapbox 2. Self-promotion 3. Advertising of their website Overlap.org, 4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Internet guides, 5. WP:COI Editing from too close "little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, no verifiable notoriety given 6. NPOV, 7. style, 8. unreferenced Widefox 04:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidate for Toronto City Council; Wikipedia precedent has already established that the municipal level of government is not a field of endeavour in which a person can be considered notable for merely standing as a candidate. Article was previously deleted in 2005 (see first AFD) and subsequently recreated after he declared his candidacy. I don't consider it a G4 since the political candidacy, while not inherently notable per WP precedent, is at the very least a different claim of notability from the earlier article. Delete. Bearcat 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable fan-made parody of Counter-Strike. Prod was removed, but article has not been significantly expanded. --Alan Au 05:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Looking at all the arguments / checks myself Delete. Tawker 17:07, 23 October 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 cult, does not pass WP:CORP. Fewer than 1000 Google hits, and no references from credible sources. --NovaSTL 06:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because you want to argue for the fame of Sahaja Yoga, 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)) . |
Comment This discussion is not about the notability of Sahaja Yoga, If you have been directed here by someone else, please be aware that this discussion is not a vote, and is not about the question of whether or not the practice of Sahaja Yoga is notable. There is already an article on Wikipedia about Sahaja Yoga, and it is not in danger. The reason for this discussion is about whether there should be a separate secondary article about the organization known as Sahaja Yoga International. In order for there to be a second article about this subject, it needs to be proven that the organization known as SYI has independent fame as a company. If not, it is more appropriate to merge information about SYI into the already existing article about Sahaja Yoga. Please limit comments to this topic. --NovaSTL 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, time for all you keep voters to get busy on the content issues. Deizio talk 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on the Talk page, this list is mainly a list of questions with no answers due to gaps in our knowledge of the past. They may never be answered. This list can go on and on in that regard. Furthermore, most of the questions smack of "educational" sensationalism that appeal to TV viewers but not serious research. They beg for Original Research and are POV. Also as stated on the Talk page, those questions which are legitimate can be asked and discussed on their respective articles pages. There is no need for this list. —Flembles 08:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability: "Marissa McMahon (née Mazzola) is the wife of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Executive Vice President of WWE Global Media Shane McMahon." Mais oui! 08:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable small burger bar. Links in article are to its own website and to a directory. No independent citations or sources. Google check brings up lots more restaurant directories, but little else. Emeraude 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aparently an independent music producer from St. Paul. Does not obviously meet WP:MUSIC and has no sources. Google turns up lots of hits but nothing obviously notable. Eluchil404 10:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by author request. Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An almost near duplicate of the Chirgilchin page. Matthuxtable 10:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a sneaky vandalism article. Most of the text is copied outright from Henri Chretien; the editor who started the article has this page as his only edit. Both Poutine and the award named after him only get hits in Google for pages based off of the Wikipedia database. Even an Amazon text search shows absolutely nothing for Henri Poutine. This man likely does not exist, and even if he does, there is absolutely no verification at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola 10:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Acedemic who does not come close to meeting WP:PROF. Prod was removed, see discussion on talk page. In all honesty, I think that it probably meets speedy criteria A7 and G11 (for the book), but given the good fiath effort to improve the article, I thought I would bring it here for wider consensus. Eluchil404 10:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet inclusion guideline for humans. Goole search returns three hits, notably "owner of a new company names Street Ballaz INC..." I would think that the review of "Tru 2 Da Game Vol. 2:Return of the King" by pinball10 [27] does not constitute non-trivial coverage. This could with some justification be seen as advertising. Delete unless reliable sources for information can be found.
brenneman 10:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete & redirect to Weird Al Yankovic. Deizio talk 13:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the Wierd Al main article, word for word. No need for this fork. People Powered 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Deizio talk 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. --Peta 23:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. It was a borderine case for A7/G11 speedy deletion in any case; non-sock votes were overwhelmingly delete; save everyone the hassle of this attracting a further 100 sock or meatpuppets in the next 24 hours which it looks set to do. The Land 19:12, 15 October 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)) . |
"small radio production group founded in 2006", the stations which air this radio show are all redlinked, and their own website has an Alexa ranking of 4,442,813. Punkmorten 10:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just for a difference in opinion, people may want to know about this and other peoples opinion is no reason for deletion
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expired WP:PROD for an article that had a no consensus result at AFD last year. PROD reason was "uncited, vague, pov article, essentially overlapping with death grunt, minor elements may be integrated in death grunt". Previous AFD here. This is a procedural renomination, so I abstain. Kusma (討論) 12:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article cites no sources, and the only Google hits I can find for "death shriek" with this meaning are WP and its mirrors. It therefore appears to be unverifiable. -- Donald Albury 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot a real term while metal lyrics often contain shrieks etc, this is not valid here, and does not describe true metal properly anyway.
The result was Keep article has been much better referenced since the start of the AfD.--Konst.ableTalk 11:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability appears to be marginal, at best. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 06:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect copyvio, since the style of the text is similar to articles written by/about Callaway on the Christianity Today Web site, but I can't find a direct article there or elsewhere that this is a direct copyvio of. Otherwise, notability appears to be asserted and somewhat established, but only somewhat. Delete if copyvio shown (and I admit I can't show it, but it still seems to be there), weak keep if not shown. --Nlu (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted, as with all other scout groups articles. Please put your efforts into Scouting in Gloucestershire. Jt spratt 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ultra-fringe genre Inhumer 21:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteable/advertisement/spam Jtrainor 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm only finding directory listings and blog mentions (of dubious sources) of this company. As of now, I don't see it meeting WP:CORP standards.--Marriedtofilm 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pure fancruft. Will consider removing other annual pay-per-views depending on the results of this debate. Aaru Bui DII 10:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completing a nomination. See the talk page of the article for rationale. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be notable in the future but isn't yet.
The result of the debate was to Delete the article. No references to show that it is even true.--Konst.ableTalk 11:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A doubt has been raised on whether these postal orders have been actually issued or not (see the talk page of the article). Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY KEEP, withdrawn by nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unsourced drinking song that gets 159 Google hits. No apparent notability. Sandstein 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) -- Withdrawn, see below. Sandstein 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 09:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A band which existed for a while and doesn't now. They released a couple of EPs, one of which sold a couple of thousand copies. They used the money to tour a bit. And that's about it. There is nothing to say about this band other than what they say about themselves, as far as I can tell. Guy 15:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, redirect to Uppingham School. Deizio talk 13:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Addhoc 15:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 09:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This just seems like blatant spam about an insignificant website, possibly speedy delete under CSD A7. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete this would actually qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1.--Konst.ableTalk 11:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raccolta means Collection in Italian. It is not the title of Vivaldi first Opus. Any collection of musical pieces, or of anything else, is called Raccolta. Eubulide 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this has any notabilty beyond what is almost certainly a small self-centred clique in London. Appears to be linked to an organisation Shytstem which I am also nominating as non-notable and crystal ball gazing; appears to be ad and is in any case written by one of the organisers. Both articles are by the same person, who has previously been warned for vandalism. Emeraude 15:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page: Shytstem Emeraude 15:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating the following pages for deletion: Squats in ex-Yu, Squats in Italy, Squats in Spain, Squats in France, Squats in Poland, Squats in Germany, Squats in Switzerland, Squats in The Netherlands, Squats in USA, and Squats in Canada. These pages are basically identical to Squats in the UK, which was deleted by the discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Squats_in_UK. I had added these pages to the original nomination, but the closing admin felt it would be better procedure to list them all. Leuko 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- USA list - delete becuase we already havea list under punk house
- germany - we already have the bluelinked places listed in the squatting page under notable squats
- netherlands - reluctantly, i like it as a list, but see comments below
- lack of verification takes care of the rest
I mean, i think there are lots of lists here on wikipedia which i personally find a lot more worthless than these, but then squattign is an interest of mine and i appreciate that the lists are not verified at this time, although perhaps Mladifilozof, who recently created most of these pages and perhaps is still learning the ropes of wikipedia, will provide verification. There is already the list of notable squats on the squatting page and i hope i have moved all the blue links to that list, which can be expanded as necessary. I find it a shame that Squats in The Netherlands is also going to get deleted, becuase it is a list which has existed for quite a while and i personally find useful. moreover, i am slowly working through the squats making entries out of them, but i guess for now they can stay on the notable squats list. Further, I think its a shame Leuko is going about the deletion in this way, as i have already pointed out here and here. And finally it would be nice at least to have a real proposal for deletion of these pages Mujinga 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Steel 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procederial nomination, contested PROD. Yanksox 15:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little more than a collection of external links. Delete per WP:NOT. ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod'd, but obviously needs a wider audience for deletion decision. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously AfD'd and deleted. The current article is much shorter than the old one and I don't believe the creators are the same, so it's not a repost, but the current article reads like an ad (listing the price??) and is still about a non-notable meme. Opabinia regalis 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deizio talk 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was on prod, but contested. Prod concern: No claims of notability, per WP:WEB UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally speedy deleted because all of the terms had been individually transwikied to Wictionary (under CSD G5). A DRV consensus overturned, reasoning that -- while dicdefs aren't permissible on Wikipedia -- glossaries are sometimes permitted. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
School vanity page with no alumns of any note whatsoever. EntropyGuardian 16:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: EntropyGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The result was merge & redirect to Pickling. Deizio talk 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteable. Wikipedia is not a recipe book Blood red sandman 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep; AfD is not a vote, it is up to those arguing for deletion to address claims of notability when they arise. They didn't, so we have to assume that Hit's evidence proves the book's notability in the absence of any argument whatsoever to the contrary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable children's book. Claims to have been made into a TV programme, which seems equally non-notable --Dangherous 17:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - as the nominator isn't actually arguing for deletion, nor is anyone else, it seems pointless to relist this. Discussion of moves goes at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information seems OK, but I don't like the name of the page, it seems a bit vague. Maybe I should put this on "requests for rename-age", but I don't know the template for that. So it's here instead. Plus, the page has gone nearly 2 years without any editting, so I've a feeling the info is somewhere else anyway. --Dangherous 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems deprecated what with Category:Universities and colleges in Lahore. In this case, cats at end of articles are less maintenance-y than having to update the list. --EEMeltonIV f17:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:SOFTWARE. Whispering 17:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete --Durin 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article pertaining to MSN Messenger at MSN Messenger. This article is not useful in any way, and serves no purpose. I nominated it for speedy deletion, but its author objected. Martin 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deizio talk 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable camp. Prod tag previously removed by article creator. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, redirecting to Youtube. Deizio talk 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - PASSING FAD THAT SERVES NO IMPORTANCE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) .
— Duplicate vote: 4.18GB (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.*Delete - flash in the pan. Would you find this in Britannica?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) 14:40, October 14, 2006
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 02:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my random merge project in Category:Star Wars spaceships, this one pops out like a sore thumb; it's an attempt at a disambiguation page, listing several very minor star wars vessels. I don't think a dab is necessary; this page as a whole is unnecessary, and can't really be redirected appropriately. — Deckiller 18:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - the main thrust of the arguments from those arguing to keep is that she is notable enough to have an article (I know there are other arguments but I'm summarizing) and that the circumstances surrounding her death confer that notability. Although that is obviously (from the sheer volume of argument below) debatable it is secondary to the policy of WP:NPOV. This article, while cited, cannot be regarded as having a neutral point of view - look at the Joe Scarborough article to see the incident is covered in a far more balanced way - and since no attempt has been made to remove bias during the course of the AFD it must deleted under that policy. Yomanganitalk 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First Deletion Reason: Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”[35] Subject of the article is non-notable, except for a flurry of speculation in 2001 regarding Joe Scarborough’s involvement in her death, and mention in a local Florida newspaper, and that time has long passed. Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging Joe Scarborough. I don’t care for Scarborough, but having this article gives undue weight to a story which has been thoroughly discredited, and as such violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- there is no investigation of Scarborough, and the Coroner said Klausutis did not die under suspicious circumstances – its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. This article was deleted once before. Only 842 hits on google, most of which are blogs. If this information is notable at all, put it in the Scarborough article, and leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer. Wikipedia is not a battleground Morton devonshire 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History Okay, to clarify on the deletion history of the article, it was nominated for deletion twice in the past for different reasons than it is being nominated for this time. The first time, the result was delete, because it was a useless and possibly POV redirect to Joe Scarborough. The second time, the main reason was lack of notability, and the result of the debate was no consensus. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC), 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete --Durin 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG. There is already an MSN messenger article at MSN Messenger; That article redirects to the Windows Live Messenger page, and it does not even have a link to the history page; Therefore I am removing the Deletion notice.
There is already an MSN messenger article at MSN Messenger; this is a pointless article. This page is a copy of a page nominated for deletion here. Martin 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is Windows Live Messenger Article But you win, ill remove it k bye MESSAGE FROM: ((Unknown_(email?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan.hardman (talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is a personal attack against someone Teh tennisman 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete.--Konst.ableTalk 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advert for John Large's company. Also fails Wikipedia is not for lists of external links. -- RHaworth 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as CSD A7. Yanksox 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2006 October 14 Non-notable organization. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail to meet every single one of the WP:BAND criteria, even though they come close to fulfilling several. Delete for now, may restore later when they actually meet at least one. --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - nn- and auto- bio. -- RHaworth 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the article is an autobiography about a person who fails the Google test (see the article's Talk Page) and reads like an advertisement JPG-GR 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn band FreeKresge 19:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Home improvement. KrakatoaKatie 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article content is only one of many topics that could be listed under 'home modification' and appears to be a gateway to firm selling household improvement stock (see external link) AuldReekie 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable surname. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. theProject 00:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No verification provided, and I cannot verify that this is a real sport. Prod removed. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as a copyright violation from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although a Google search brings up 9,350 hits, it should be merged into World Wide Web Consortium, provided article subpages are now considered bad form. Moreover, it reeks of WP:SPAM. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a copyvio from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/. Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete.--Konst.ableTalk 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three months since the previous nomination and nothing has happened. No one is interested in working on this. And the few that have made edits don't seem to care about citing sources or avoiding POV and OR. AlistairMcMillan 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, delete. You know what, Alistair McMillan, you've really put this article down the shitter anyway. As the history page will show, you had nothing better to do with your time than to prepare this article to propose it for deletion; you hacked and hacked away at its material and obviously want it gone. I dont know what your grudge is, but a genuine argument such as this would've been fine if you hadent made it your sole purpous to delete it. Truly there is nothing wrong with this page; but your will seems to be stronger than mine.
The article is open to many ideas and contributions to all sides of the argument, but apparently its not good enough for Wikipedia (although Tom Miller is).
I expected this; after you followed my every move like a hawk. You are--without a doubt-- the worst WikiSnob I know of.
Thank you for your patronage, administrator. --Alegoo92 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
commercial advertising of non-notable store. ThuranX 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sango123 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
((prod)) tag was removed without discussion. The topic is a substub about an album to be released in approximately two years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mikeblas 05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was
Uhh, nominating again, for some reason this wasn't deleted. Crystal ball, etc per first discussion --Macarion 20:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per passing of WP:MUSIC. Nishkid64
Was speedy deleted yesterday under CSD A7, and was recreated and tagged for speedy deletion before User:4.18GB nominated it for AfD. He/she did not make the AfD page, so I am doing so. I have requested the user come here and state their reasons for nominating this page for deletion. The user did say "Notability Issue. This entry serves of no importance and would not be found in a respectable encyclopedia." Nishkid64 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this page is entirely a glorified dictionary definition. No noteability established. Prod removed without comment Blood red sandman 21:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. However, I plan to (as an editor) merge some of these articles into List of minor characters in Danny Phantom. It's obvious that there's consensus to keep major characters as separate articles, but unless someone can give me a good reason why each minor character deserves its own article, I will merge the minor characters into one list. Ral315 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(this AfD is for the Danny Phantom character and for all other characters/elements in the Danny Phantom series) WP:NOT a place to dump articles about your favorite show on. Delete. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] Other articles being AfDed can be found here: A Link to the Past (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE I don't see how the entirety of those articles merit deletion. Merging, perhaps, but the recommended course of action seems extreme and personally motivated.--Jace Draccus 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per passing of WP:MUSIC. Nishkid64
Was speedy deleted yesterday under CSD A7, and was recreated and tagged for speedy deletion before User:4.18GB nominated it for AfD. He/she did not make the AfD page, so I am doing so. I have requested the user come here and state their reasons for nominating this page for deletion. The user did say "Notability Issue. This entry serves of no importance and would not be found in a respectable encyclopedia." Nishkid64 21:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not very notable Skynet1216 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Williamsburg County, South Carolina. I've no idea what part of it would be useful, so it's just tagged and anyone who wants can perform the merge. No one here wanted to delete it in any case. - Bobet 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems like an essay, I think all relevant material should be moved to Williamsburg, South Carolina, actually, there doesn't seem to be one on wikipedia. ReverendG 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up genre. No scene at all to support this supposed genre of music. Coining a term both to advertise two bands from one city. It gives no musical defination as to seen, and claims Metalcore bands are something they are not. It should be deleted as it violates several policys including 'Adversting', 'Coining a Term', and articles with no information of value. Leyasu 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks any references and seems to have been made up (no outside sources can be found). - DNewhall
The result was delete. - Bobet 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unencyclopedic article that appears to have originated with the author of a biography of the subject (published by a vanity press). Subject fails WP:BIO and receives a grand total of 41 unique ghits - almost all related to the biography. Victoriagirl 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus (exactly split opinion, no overwhelming argument), but if no-one cares enough about this article to purge it of non-notable companies in the near future, I suggest a renomination. Incidentally, saying 'strong speedy delete' does not give your !vote triple points. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This List of Minnesota companies attempts to list all companies that are, or once were, headquartered in Minnesota". Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Punkmorten 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a largely unsourced and unecessary point of view fork essay. I've been tracking this page since its creation. The original contributor said it was based off of someone else's essay, so when he was warned about that, he slapped on the "major revamp" tag. It's been almost two weeks without any of the issues being addressed. I spoke to the user on the talk page without really managing to get anywhere. Anyway, I think this breaks the no original research policy and should be removed considering it's basically an opinion essay. Wafulz 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, and I can't find any notable alumni either. -- SonicAD (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Bobet 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One year and five months after its creation, this page is still, as a May 2005 comment on its talk page put it, "woefully incomplete." Apparently no one is interested for the time being... zenohockey 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A self-published author of both traditional and ebooks. Subject fails WP:BIO. "Joseph P. Vermette" receives a total of 8 unique ghits, at least two of which are related to others with the same name. Victoriagirl 22:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Newudic 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable NYArtsnWords 22:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources given, and I can't find anything that discusses "rolled w" in the context of linguistics. Prod contested with the reason: "Hypothetical". In that case, why not a hypothetical "rolled q" or "rolled schwa"? ... discospinster talk 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability/importance in question. Appears to be very minor wrestler and stand-up comic of limited success. ghits: [71] NMChico24 23:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and move to Ryan Barrett. KrakatoaKatie 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable boxer, and little infomation is known about him. Kurt000 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under CSD A7. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vanity page for NN-webcomic DesertSky85451 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed notability, but unable to verify existence of provided reference: Zach Mays: An Unauthorized Autoboigraphy, 2005 Random House. Failed prod, so nominating it here. Rawr 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was ding, ding, ding, keep all! - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
Results of matches are unnecessary. Important storyline development and title changes are already recorded in the pages of the individual wrestlers and the championships. Aaru Bui DII 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why you need a central location so people don't spend 3 hours trying to find something that can only take 3 seconds. John cena123 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]