The result was Speedy Delete (db-author). -- JLaTondre 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created by mistake by me / wrong use of capitalization Susanoleara 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nomination (content dispute). NawlinWiki 12:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Steel 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was originally nominated for Speedy Deletion. I believe that it is not a Speedy Deletion candidate so I moved it to Afd. I believe that David Enoch fails WP:V. I couldn't find any information about David Enoch on the most well-known chess sites: [1] [2] [3] [4]
The result was delete. -- Steel 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Single joke on single level of Duke Nukem 3D. Stands absolutely no chance of being kept, consider speedying if possible. - Hahnchen 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Prod concern was "A church; no assertion or evidence of notability". Deprodder gave no edit summary or comment. Article contains no references to independent reliable sources that could evidence meeting WP:ORG. GRBerry 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Steel 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to this nn-webcomic, the webcomic author Steven Stwalley is nominated. Soapy the Chicken, seen here is a webcomic with no Alexa rank. It manages to get 60 unique Google links. This fails WP:WEB, WP:V. - Hahnchen 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by the people who invented the term, as the history shows, so it is Original Research and Vanity; it is only used by the people at the radio show, so it is too limited in scope to be encyclopedic; it is POVed in the way it describes "a profound connection;" the information it presents is both obvious and already covered in other articles, mainly Anthropocene, so it is also unecessary. K-UNIT 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another webcomic on Wikipedia's infamous billboard. You can see this comic, here hosted on a domain that fails to obtain an Alexa rank. Also try Googling the name of the creator Robert Mauritson. - Hahnchen 01:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to establish notability per WP:WEB. I prodded it on the 12th but an anonymous user removed the prod. It hasn't seen any marked improvement since the prod, particularly in the field of outside references. Axem Titanium 01:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, despite efforts of anons. Punkmorten 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This event, while likely to occur in the future, does not pass Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only generic information is available for this event, and the promoters themselves, so far, have only applied for a license for this show with the Nevada State Athletic Commission[7] and that is no guarantee that the event will happen. In general, articles for UFC events are created only when the UFC themselves announce them. Prod was removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. hateless 01:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article created by User:Zam123. Claims to have acted in Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna . But IMDB shows no entry of this actor in the credits. [8] Ageo020 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the first half of the article is included in the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses article. The information in the second half of the article is included in more detail and with better quality on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses page.
The debate of the previous nomination can be seen here. The result was no consensus, however the article has changed since its nomination about this time last year. BenC7 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes a consensus... BenC7 07:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by Dan goldfarb (talk · contribs) who insists he had nothing to do with the creation of the article. If the article has any hope of conforming to WP:BIO one would need some presence on the web. However, IMDb knows only his work on Game Shop which, incidentally, is a 3 minute silent short. 33 unique hits for "Dan Goldfarb" + film, and 4 for "Dan Goldfarb" +cinematography, (2 wiki, 1 irrelevant + the IMDb one). It is also claimed that Goldfarb is a news photographer and although I am certain he does a fine job of it, there are only 19 Ghits for "Dan Goldfarb"+ photographer, none of which constitute independent coverage. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable non-character-- fictitious author who does not appear as an actual character on the TV series, but only "existed" as a marketing ploy for the semi-tie-in book Bad Twin. The deletion also includes the redirects Valenzetti and Laird Granger. --LeflymanTalk 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. As has been pointed out, this case didn't need AfD. Keeping it as a redirect is harmless, does the job, and helps prevent a similar inadvertent recreation under the wrong title. No merging necessary. Tyrenius 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See this diff [9], which contains the original complaint. In short, there is an article called GlobalSecurity.Org (capital "O") and another called Globalsecurity.org (lower case "o"). The latter contains all of the information of the former and more. The latter also adheres to Wiki's guidelines of WP:CITE and WP:NOR, while the former doesn't. Plus, "GlobalSecurity.Org" is a violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions. Thus, GlobalSecurity.Org should be deleted. WGee 03:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but we cannot have an article in an encyclopedia which is a) unsourced, and b) claims that Bob Dylan, David Bowie, the Beatles, Jay-Z, The Byrds, George Harrison, Black Sabbath, Dizzy Gillespie (Dizzy fricking Gillespie!) and countless others had songs featuring cowbells.
There are two references in the entire article that verifies two songs. The rest is taken from "The Cowbell Project" (I'm assuming, since that's the only external link, which itself is just some crazy fanatics home page, and cites no sources).
I know people are fond of their internet memes, and that's fine. You can have your articles on Star Wars kids and Numa Numas and whatever. That's ok, I don't have any problem with them at all. But honestly, can you call yourself a good wikipedian if you want an article in an encylopedia that claims that Jimi Hendrix used cowbells.
Kill it, kill it fast! Oskar 03:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable - though article gives (bare) assertion of notability hence not trying speedy Springnuts 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Web site. Possible vanity / advertising site Fairsing 04:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Tornadoes of 2006. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikinews. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Love the name, though. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a restaurant fails WP:CORP, which would require that Frankz be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". The Torontoist source is a weblog, which is not an acceptable verifiable source per WP:V. The only Google hit is the student newspaper article that isn't about the restaurant as much as it is about the competition for hot dog sales. Erechtheus 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 16:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del yet another promotion by Zhumaf (talk · contribs) of theories of a Torbert, W.. Another similar article was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developing Leadership Capacities Through Action Inquiry. Both look like original research, in the meaning of the exposition of a theory of some author. Mukadderat 04:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very much like a hoax to me per WP:HOAX. Google test supports this; if this was a real mathematical or otherwise subject, I supect it'd get more than 63 hits. (I realize the limitations of the Google test, but for this I feel it is valid evidence. Crystallina 04:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creator notified --WikiSlasher 08:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Move to user space. Tyrenius 16:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant but exception to general merge procedure
This is a duplicate article, and so merging would be the standard course. This particular page seems to be an exception to the rule. It has become rather large and a merge would be a nontrivial endeavor. My main concern is that a merge will never take place.
The content of this page would not seem to be so different from the original as to add significant/salient info. Meanwhile, both pages exist in competition. I suggest that the article be deleted in order to remove the redundancy from Wikipedia, and dedicated editors save off this page's contents to their hard drives and trickle the info into the main article. --Ling.Nut 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion Spammy article about non-notable obscure freeware game. This is the current message from the game author on the game's website as linked from the article: stunner.st.funpic.org/ "Shut down: Stunner has been unupdated and unplayed for a while now. Due to the fact that I am done with Stunner. Developing it has become boring to me, maybe one day I'll bring it back.". Recommend deletion as advertising/self-promotion abuse of Wikipedia & non-encyclopedic content. Bwithh 04:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 1ne 20:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost completely incoherent. Appears to be a non-notable religion. Only a few Google hits, and most are troll posts on Christian forums. eaolson 05:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia should have well-noted as well as obscure information. Asana Bodhitharta is also a songwriter and composer. Also, Asanas is not a mispelling nor a misnomer of any kind. The word posture or seat come form the root word of Grace. Do not delete article.--Witnessthereal 18:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got my signature from the book and part of the first page of the book is on my page, I think that is reliable enough.
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This band seems to just barely make a claim of notability, so that the article is not A7, but I think they are far from meeting the standards of WP:MUSIC Deville (Talk) 05:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article, it's never going to be an article, it's not about a notable subject, and it's not been updated. TheMadBaron 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article concerns an acutely non-notable subject and contains no credible references. John254 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was smerge (slight merge) with Cliff Bleszinski. Only a slight merge is appropriate, given the size of the target article. Mangojuicetalk 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable game that the creator of the article argues should be included because it was the first game for its designer, who has gone on to fortune in the industry. The game already has coverage in the designer's article. In fact, that coverage provides 3 of the 4 Google hits[17] for the title of the game. This article fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. Erechtheus 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Google has forgotten the game doesn't mean Wikipedia should forget it, too. Search Dare to Dream while you're at it; you won't get too many hits related to that game either. A Wikipedia article can keep an obscure piece of history from being forgotten. Somebody looking for information about the game will be thankful for a wikipedia article about it.
There was already a wikilink to Dragon's Plight in Bleszinski's article, which told me someone else wanted more information about the game, too. There is no "coverage" in that article; there is an empty link to it and passive mention of it. I just filled it in. It's part of Cliff Bleszinski's history. It was the first game he designed, which makes it as notable as Dare to Dream (his second) and Jazz Jackrabbit (his third).
I suppose the article could be merged with Dare to Dream's entry (the gameplay sections do overlap), but it doesn't seem necessary as they discuss two different games. Odds are someone else will come along and recommend the article be split. And it doesn't belong in Bleszinski's article because it's not about the man himself, it's about the game.
If someone else recommends Dragon's Plight be included in Bleszinski's article, or merged with Dare to Dream, I don't mind doing that. The information doesn't need to be deleted!--Tagenar 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasons for merging Dragon's Plight into Bleszinski's entry. The game was probably only important to his history, not gaming as a whole. Since I'm outnumbered, go ahead and merge it.
I'm not sure how it can fit. Maybe someone can think of a way to make it relevant to the designer and not to the game itself? I just wouldn't want the information deleted entirely. It still deserves a place, and if that place is not in its own article that's okay.--Tagenar 23:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With reviews to back up the info on both games and reinforce their place in Bleszinski's history, does Dragon's Plight deserve its own article now? DtD and Dragon's Plight may not be notable to the history of gaming but they are notable to the author, and if these sources can be used to justify the information, they justify a Dragon's Plight article in Wikipedia. I recognize the difficulty of verifying information like this. I'd like to find something in the New York Times to use as a source, too, but at least this is something. I hope the sites I gave above can also be used to help Cliff's entry, too.
I believe it's all notable. Anyone looking for information on these games and/or on Bleszinski's early career will be glad for some details about the games themselves. (Now with a source to back the details up.) If the concensus is still to merge, at least there's a source to tie the game to the creator's history. Maybe it'll allow more than a one-sentence passing mention in his bio. But please reconsider merging in light of these potential sources.--Tagenar 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-verifiable, only information available is forumcruft. Despite large google hit count, most information appears to be torrents and additional forum cruft, suggesting it is also nonnotable Canadian-Bacon t c e 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This organization is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Its mention at UST already includes all important information. This page is merely that information plus an external link dump plus the text from the organization's main page. No significant work on the article has been done since the addition of a cleanup tag, except the further addition of an NPOV tag. My apologies in advance if I make any mistakes in this process; this is my first AfD. BCSWowbagger 06:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was election loss (delete). Punkmorten 22:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate in municipal school board election, no other notable contribution. Page seems primarily geared towards advertising candidate Canadian-Bacon t c e 06:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-verifiable, page seems primarily geared towards advertising the product and self-explanatory. A sign of Viral_marketing spread to Wikipedia Xinghuei 07:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Substub on utterly non-notable fringe political group. Statement "It cannot be determined whether the society has been active since 1997" gives you an idea of its influence. Fishal 07:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to fail WP:MUSIC by not making a claim that would confer notability per that notability guideline. 55 unique Google hits.[20] Erechtheus 07:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as hoax by Herostratus - Yomanganitalk 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little Yahoo! search results. Maybe I should use Google. This is Tosh. --Dangherous 09:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Schwan Food Company . Whispering(talk/c) 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a product line, and should be Merged with the parent company's article at Schwan Food Company and then deleted. The edit log shows that the creator even thinks this article is trivial (article creation. (somehow) trivial article, link to parody advert website (no direct purchase possible).) Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD G6, duplicate material -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to replicate information that's available at Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, with little reason for it to be done. It also seems to have no sources, it's got a copyright statement in it, a disclaimer that suggests it's based partly on speculation, and a bunch of pictures at the bottom. I don't see any point of this article. PROD tag was removed by an anon, so bringing it here. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99% DO NOT DELLETE. I QUIT DOING TAT ALLRDY!!!!!GC 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I Wiil do anything 4 the"wikipedia Team"GC 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Reason 4 NO SOURCES[reply]
Sry,can ya edit it GC 09:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, already transwikied --- Deville (Talk) 02:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a how-to article, has been copied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Pest control of slugs). It's unlikely that it could be rewritten in an encyclopedic style due to the subject matter. Links-to will be replaced with interwiki links. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was originally started by an IP: 24.7.25.122, but was incomplete. No reason was given, and it was the only contibution from that IP. Yomanganitalk 09:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep as a faulty nomination. There is no such thing as "delete and merge". The two are mutually exclusive. If you want duplicate articles merged, merge them yourself! Articles For Deletion is for article deletions, which only administrators can perform. Article merger can be done by any editor, even ones without accounts. Uncle G 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content to existing article Charlesknight 10:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Firefox 2.0b build, linked from only one article (that being List of web browsers). - Sikon 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, "su madre" doesn't translate as "your mother". I must but assume that it translates idiomatically as "yo mama" then. Otherwise, tosh. --Dangherous 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pointless to be blunt. There are millions of computer games, and therefore millions of level editors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or lists. Localzuk (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Microphone. Whispering(talk/c) 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subject of the article is already covered in Microphone, there is no reason to clean the article up or keep it. The doctor23 11:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None notable e-fed (people who pretend to be wrestlers by writing roleplays), thus none notable. Strong Delete Englishrose 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable to you, but notable to others... Notable to the people who write and those who read it... Obviously Vince McMahon owns a large stake in this website so other wrestling federations are forced to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.135.63 (talk • contribs)
The result was WP:SNOW speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. – Chacor 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOAX, Merge to BJAODN--Gonjkl 12:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, someone could have easily Googled it to see where it pops up, like at linguist.com http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-175.html Bignole 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just close this, it's even in DYK. .* 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted by Prodego as CSD A3: No content whatsoever. - Yomanganitalk 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4D as in the lottery in Malaysia and Singapore doesn't stand for fourth dimension, it stands for 4-digit Glueball 11:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge with Hopes and Fears. —Centrx→talk • 00:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article is just a list of features on a dvd. Should be deleted or merged into the main keane article Richyard 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First deletion reason: Non-notable conspiracy cruft video producer. Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable sources. Cites only to Alex Jones' websites and a podcast. Fails WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:VAIN. Morton devonshire 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect/merge to List of Garfield characters. —Centrx→talk • 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a section under List of Garfield characters we don't need an article Samuel 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Tyrenius 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep but needs to be improved. Tyrenius 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be copied from another site, unencyclopedic and the information can probably be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Archibald99 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable subsidary - does not assert why it is notable. MER-C 13:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Tyrenius 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable article; subject of article is also the subject of several spam links in articles about Central Florida SwissCelt 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. AfD is a debate; the earlier deletes seem not only less informed than the later keeps, but have not responded to the convincing points put forward, and this reduces the weight of their opinions, which would otherwise have resulted in no consensus. Tyrenius 17:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria Neier 13:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
some discount shop. listing now Melaen 14:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Tyrenius 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no significant edits to the article in months. The article has few sourced statements, and it cites information out of context. Statistical data from questionable sources are deliberately slanted to make India look like the poorest country in the world (a patently false claim). There is no precedent on wikipedia to single out the poverty situation of any country as an article, while statistics show that poverty situation in some other countries are far worse than in India. Why is India being singled out? Plus, the pictures are placed out of context and have no text in the articles to support their placement. As it stands (and has stood for months), it is offensive. There is a better article Standard of living in India where the matter of poverty in India can be put in at length so this article is also redundant with a POV title. Hkelkar 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:A merge with Standard of living in India is not necessary (IMHO) as most of the NPOV information (incl images) is already there in this other article (put there by the same user too). The issue (I think) is the redundancy, 100% POV (loading the title itself to a certain POV) and misrepresented information placed with no context (for months!).Hkelkar 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let not make an India-Pakistan mud-slinging match on the empty stomach of crores of hungry people in the sub-continent. That they have to go to bed hungry should be a matter of concern for everyone, not a patriotic issue. Deepak D'Souza, Hyderabad, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.197.22 (talk • contribs)
Comment:As of this moment I am doubtful as to whether the article should be deleted or not. It would seem that the better solution is to shorten the poverty section in the standard of living article and expand the poverty article and cross-reference when needed. To all those who have been following this AfD (and any other interested parties) I would be very happy if you would peruse the poverty article, as well as the standard of living article, and fix any redundancies by cross-referencing.Thanks.Hkelkar 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Speedily deleted - spam, no context, blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short article providing little or no context; Speedy delete tag removed by author. Springnuts 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by Winhunter on author's request. - Yomanganitalk 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable. Springnuts 14:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted, the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere. The claim that "all schools are notable" is simply absurd, and anyone basing their reasoning on a falsehood like that is likely to be discounted. What we're dealing with here is a small, small school that is part of a church that itself isn't notable enough to have an article. Remember, AFD is not a vote; judgement can and must be exercised. --Cyde Weys 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, no links to it, very little content. ColinFine 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep contingent on rewrite. —Centrx→talk • 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entry fails WP:ORG. It is also written in an ad-like tone. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed by User:83.84.19.140 [27]. This software is non-notable; very few hits on Google, no discernable press coverage. Has never released (version 0.3) and hasn't updated in about six months. The article reads like an advert. Mikeblas 15:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In open source software (or any software for that matter) version 0.3 doesn't have to mean never realeased. eMule for example is still at 0.42. Does read like an advert though, but I still found the article helpful. 82.131.12.193 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brandon says : I discovered this project when looking for a console based p2p program that supports ed2k network. I want to run a file server on my low profile, quiet firewall, so I don't have to have my computer on all the time. I was specifically looking for a program like hydranode, and wikipedia helped me find it. Not sure I could have done this without wikipedia's article. As there are no other programs that do what hydranode can do, I recommend that this article not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.37.41 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn, or listcruft, gets almost no google hits other than retreads of this article, and a few prod tags were added but removed (see history) Renosecond 15:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable neologism if not a hoax. The article cites only urbandictionary.com as a source. This is not a proper source because the entire point of that site is that anyone can submit a definition. In addition, the only Google hits for the term and "oral sex" come from that site [29]. Deprodded. Erechtheus 15:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Appears to be an advertisement for a new magazine with very little market presence. Wikipedia should not be used for promoting new projects. Donald Albury 16:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page of non-notable blogger. Leibniz 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7 - Tangotango 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established for this person, which is surprising seeing as how he is "revolutionary". [Check Google hits] only gives 87 results, none of which are very helpful. Prod tag (by me) removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Miriam. —Mets501 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google search showed only 36 actual ghits, many seeming to refer to the article. Topic is controverial, article is unsourced. (Note: The event in the narrative of Miriam is sourced, but not use of the name "Snow-white Miriam" or statements about contemporary significance or views). Notability appears not to have been established after months of requests for sources. Given that the article involves a narrative in the life of Miriam, suggest merging any reliably sourced content with Miriam. --Shirahadasha 17:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete as an unsourced + WP:OR description and interpretation of the Miriam story. JoshuaZ 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) changing to weak keep since it has some sourcing, barring that merge sourced content into Miriam, There still seems to be OR issues. JoshuaZ 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, duplicate page with improper page title. NawlinWiki 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this page is created by a vandalist User:ILike2BeAnonymous by chauvunist claims instead Qanun. zandweb 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was done by nominator, no need for discussion (Liberatore, 2006). 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a major editor, MusikFabrik was, in fact, a group including Paul Wehage, Jean-Thierry Boisseau, and selling music for some of the other composers listed in this article. Here's where the information came out, It is confirmed by Jean-Thierry Boisseau here. As such, I believe that all the 20th century sections of the list should be deleted, until they can be remade from independent sources. Adam Cuerden talk 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was the page has been speedy deleted under A1. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subpage of an article that already exists. Can't just redirect to Belfast, Mpumalanga, because it wouldn't be a valid redirect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, not even the nominator wants to delete it. Merge if you want, but don't bring it to afd for that. - Bobet 08:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not WP:NOTABLE. Merge into Mobile phone. Hello32020 18:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Please note I cannot see the validity of the POV fork argument, as there is no particular view in the mention of this incident in Operation Days of Penitence to fork from, nor does this article advance a POV. It expands on the smaller mention, as is not uncommon. I also note that there is a sizable list of media mentions worldwide. The delete reason "Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable'" is an affirmation of keeping the article. It would also seem to be qualitatively different from the other two "similar" articles cited in the nom, which have reached a clear delete decision. Tyrenius 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: This is the latest installment in my "Articles-Created-by-Alberuni-Each-Devoted-Solely-to-a-Victim-of-the-Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict for Deletion" series. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Siam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar. I did not bundle this article for deletion with the others, because this article is much more extensive, as there was an IDF investigation into this clearly tragic death. However I still believe this article should be deleted for the reasons below.)
While Iman's death is obviously tragic, I believe this article should be deleted due to the following concerns:
(1) Fails WP:BIO. I don't think Iman satisfies any of the criteria at WP:BIO, including being "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works...(Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage)." The article's coverage, and the references, are really about the incident of Iman's death and the subsequent investigation, not about Iman herself. The article includes almost no biographical details about Iman, and such details would indeed seem out of place. (Compare with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith.)
(2) Violates POV fork. The incident of Iman's tragic death and the subsequent investigation are already covered in Operation_Days_of_Penitence, an NPOV and extraordinarily thorough day-by-day coverage of that operation. The nominated article is a POV fork of the other article, as it "highlight[s] negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Specifically, it highlights the negative fact of the accidental shooting of a Palestinian child by the IDF. Widening the context even further than Operation Days of Penitence, hundreds of children on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been killed, by suicide bombers and by the IDF, just since the second intifada began in 2000, and this unfortunate, broader topic is also already well-covered in Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The nominated article devoted entirely to Iman's death takes it out of the context of both Operation Days of Penitence and the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Pan Dan 19:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And more [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
--Striver 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JJ211219 23:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Near unanimous. Tyrenius 18:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SEN. ALLEN: Tim, I made a mistake. I said things thoughtlessly. I’ve apologized for it, as well I should. But there was no racial or ethnic intent to slur anyone. If I had any idea that, that that word, and to some people in some parts of the world, world, was an insult, I would never do it, because it’s contrary to what I believe and who I am. MR. RUSSERT: Well, where’d the word come from? It must’ve been in your consciousness. SEN. ALLEN: Oh, it’s just made up. MR. RUSSERT: Made up? SEN. ALLEN: Just made up. Made-up word. MR. RUSSERT: You’d never heard it before? SEN. ALLEN: Never heard it before.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14815993/page/7/
But let's review. We know that not only is "macaca" a widely used racial epithet in American crypto-racist and white supremacist circles. Its apparent origin is among the colonial population of francophone North Africa -- where Allen's mother was raised.
Now, call me ungenerous, but given those facts, the idea that "macaca" was simply three syllables Allen randomly strung together when digging at a dark-skinned young man who was getting on his nerves just doesn't strike me as credible.
I don't expect Allen to admit now that rather than make this name up it was a synonym for the N-word that he was fond of when he was a kid. But he's practically begging for renewed attention to this transparent lie by weaving it, again and again, into his strained apologies. [62]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Book with little notability and of highly questionnable credibility. Published by a vanity press. The title gets a limited number of Google hits [63] mostly on forums, blogs and message boards and because his author gets some coverage as a Republican politician and a radio-show host. A previous debate resulted a year ago in a no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism. I'd like to point out that the book fails to meet the proposed criteria for notability of books:
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject doesn't seem to be notable. The phrases "TUS Project", "Megaman Battle Network 7", and "Rockman EXE 7" all return less than 150 Google hits. Also, at least two other users have told me that this article includes inappropriate information. --Ixfd64 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the vast majority of the information was obtained illegally, and as a result, TUS is threatening to stop the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.88.213 (talk • contribs)
Merging duplicated AfD into this one: [67] --WinHunter (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, wrong title, apparently about a piece of vaporware The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like an essay, and is hopelessly POV Cordless Larry 19:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. There is no consensus in the numbers, I have at 4-4. So on the arguments. It is true that galleries are are not proper articles (although we do have some articles that are basically galleries, we're not supposed to). This point is not really strongly refuted. Yes there a captions for some of the photos, but this makes it little more than a captioned gallery. The other main Keep point made is this is a useful and encyclopedic entity. That may be, but still, it's not really an article. The main article does have a number of good images (some of which are in this gallery). With a link to the Commons gallery, this seems to serve to purpose. Bottom line: we have to hold the line somewhere, and I think the point that Wikipedia articles should not be just collections of images is strong enough that the article should go. Also FWIW slashes are not allowed in article names in the way used here. Herostratus 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT clearly states that Wikipedia is not for "Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" and that describes this supposed article. Should just be a link to the commons gallery [68] in the main article on this topic. --W.marsh 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn website--So3 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not assert any notability about its subject. It does not place this school, one of thousands like it, in any historical context. It does not provide any information available elsewhere, nor does it relate it to any broader educational or cultural context. The information it does include is either of such a generic and common nature as to be self-evident (nearly all public high schools have sports programs, for example), or is specific and unverified. There are no sources pertaining to the article; the only link given is to the school's main page.
I came across this article on random page patrol and placed a WP:PROD tag on it, citing these concerns. RJHall (talk) removed it, with the following summary: Disagree, plus H.S. deletes are controversial. It is not clear to me how he thought this article did assert notability, and I would invite such explanations here. As to the controversial nature of school AfDs, that remains a mystery to me. Articles about schools are not in themselves a special type of article, nor do they enjoy special status. They do not enjoy policy-level protection–even articles on Prime Ministers and Presidents don't have such protection in itself. Rather, the nature of the subject guarantees an easy assertion of notability and the ready availability of reliable sources.
I would argue that this article does not enjoy that status; does not possess reliable sources; does not assert and does not enjoy notability. Thanks for your time. Mackensen (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a direct descendant from King Rama IV of Thailand; though by law, she doesn't carry any formal title. Her impact to Thai society can be recognize by a socially mandate rule (not a law) when addressing her as "Khun". This article is a stub but can be expanded (and Yes, current image need to be changed). Thai Goverment consider her as part of royal family. underexpose 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a member of the Royal Family of Thailand. As previously stated, this stub can - and likely will - be expanded. Phoenix7718 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!: I don't usually encounter such obvious decisions in an AfD discussion. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this article should be kept and expanded! With the coup in Thailand & Thaksin on his way out today, Mai (and all the rest of the Royal Family) is an even more prominent figure than when this was AfD tagged. I'm sure we'll see news reports saying that the people are looking to the Royals for reassurance that the coup will end peacefully, if not silently. Deebki 04:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A resume/autobiography. GregorB 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deville (Talk) 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think the extra cap in the title is unintentional. (?) --- Deville (Talk) 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restaurant with zero ghits and no assertion of notability. Prod removed with no comment. Jamoche 21:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, though a credibly constructed article for a new user. Tyrenius 18:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Massive self-promotion, I don't really see much prove of notability, he's fairly unknown on serieus professional music sources on internet too... User:Cybersonik [69] discovered the contributions of User:Qabbalah, the author of this article; and, as it seems, writing an article about himself. Even worse: he's inserting his name in many different articles, spamming wikipedia as self-promotion; see Special:Contributions/Qabbalah LimoWreck 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. It is possible that an article about this topic might at some point (possibly) be made that would be worth keeping. However, the current article is two sentences, one of which is patent nonsense and the other is a restatement of the title. Policy-wise I'm not sure we can apply different speedy criteria to separate parts of the article but it seems like a reasonable thing to do in this case. JoshuaZ 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 28 September 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)) . |
This article violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:SOFTWARE, and WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "secret" studio that nobody even in their home town knows about, that is "rumoured" to have been the site of "one off" recordings, but nobody knows for sure. The only Redbrick Studios which comes up in Google is one in the UK, but then, since this one is "secret", I'm not surprised. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete While I agree with Truthbringer that notability does not vanish when an institution closes this school did not have any notability in the first place. The only argument that can be made for notability is the age of the school but even then it barely goes back to the 1880s. I was unable to find any record of notable almuni or any other particulary notable event or matter associated with the school. JoshuaZ 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Now changing to Weak keep the age of the school might confer notability. JoshuaZ 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure to whether the subject is suitably significant for inclusion in wikipedia. The article appears little more than a bio. Senordingdong 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to BT Group. —Centrx→talk • 23:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of above page AND related page Syntegra This subsidiary is only notable for its historical association with Control Data Corporation and for being a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group plc[70]. It's not even called BT Consulting and Systems Integration anymore, its now called BT Global Services (Check out the redirects here). Recommend Delete & Redirect/Merge - (not that there's much to merge - hardly anything). The Global Services division is already mentioned on the main BT Group plc page. The relationship between Syntegra and CDC and BT is already mentioned on the Control Data Corporation page, and also to some extent on the Syntegra page. I am also nominating Syntegra for deletion/merge/redirect for similar reasons as its basically an older name for the same subsidiary. There's no reason to create all these separate pages for the same subsidiary. Bwithh 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had two AFD nominations recently. The first resulted in a delete. It was recreated, and deleted as a repost. It was then the subject of a deletion review and subsequently relisted at AFD where it was again decided it should be deleted. The content has now been moved from TikiPro and is a stub. There was considerable work done on it during the last AFD listing and it was still eventually decided that it failed to meet WP:CORP. I don't see that this has changed in the last few weeks, so rather than have somebody spend time rewriting the article I suggest it is deleted. Yomanganitalk 22:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Whispering(talk/c) 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not appear significant enough for inclusion in wikipedia Senordingdong 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. -- Steel 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I believe I neglected to add this to the log on the appropriate day. ... discospinster talk 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources provided for his alleged popularity or even his thesis. Probably some kid messing around, but I couldn't verify it one way or the other so I dropped a prod tag. Author Anon removed it. And here we are. ... discospinster talk 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article Photo_Genesis is an advertisment for a free online gallery of photos. It is not an encyclopedic article and is not written in a NPOV. = MidgleyDJ 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 22:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from one very helpful user, there hasn’t exactly been much in the way of useful feedback. I am good with cameras and EV’s which may or may not be “notable” clearly I am not good with writing articles; shame that only one user could find the time to be productive with their comments and explanations. The lack of response would seem to imply that many don’t really have an opinion one way or another, judging by the huge response on some AFd’s
I am a staunch believer in helping to develop people in areas where they are not so strong. I don’t exactly feel inspired to re-write something that is just going to receive one word/phrase answers. “delete” Surly if one feels so strongly about something, then logically they should be able to express that with more than one word/phrase/sentence.
I could probably re write it into one short paragraph that has little educational value and comply with all except “notability” but if the general consensus is that Photo Genesis isn’t notable there isn’t anything I can do about that.
Thank you for the warm welcome!
The result was Delete. Kusma (討論) 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No demonstration of notability. Only one episode and a trailer has been released [73]. Highly probable vanity. "A Clone Apart" gets 87 unique hits on Google. Drat (Talk) 22:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Silly joke. Leibniz 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tragic, but non notable Hu 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball Keep. Tawker 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First nomination (2 January 2006)
Fails WP:BIO. Google test inconclusive, varied results. (The majority of the hits are his calls to help Freenode). WP does not have an article on the creator of DALnet, Dalvenjah, nor the original admin of EFnet, Greg Lindahl. Those networks have at times been much more popular (and are much more legendary in the IRC business) than Freenode. There is no reason to consider it as anything else. While Freenode more closely pushes its discussion topics toward GNU ideas and open-source software (including Wikimedia's IRC channels), it is still an IRC network like DALnet and EFnet are. It isn't notable enough to warrant anything other than an article about the network itself (which we have).
Page was a redirect to Peer-Directed Projects Center for a lengthy time, and the only reason for its resurrection into a non-WP:BIO article was his death. It has been resurrected several times in spite of the previous AfD, and the example containing the consensus of most editors for their reasoning is this:
Revision as of 09:42, 17 September 2006 (edit)
Stesch (Talk | contribs)
(Restoring page. There are currently many links pointing to this due to his recent death. Have a little respect, please.)
In the previous AfD debate, Rob himself told Ta bu shi da yu that an article about him wasn't notable. (The consensus of that Afd was delete.)
Links to the page are minimal and fixable. --JStalk 23:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, discounting SPA's. Mangojuicetalk 03:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected vanity page. Person clearly not encyclopedic Vic sinclair 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ratherhaveaheart 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad Faith Delete - I'd just like to point out that I suspect kultur's delete vote has been done in bad faith. He runs one of the businesses in Ottawa that was affected by the Panhandler's Union civil actions. As far as "Personal Info" as Vanity is concerned, maybe kultur has no idea what the point of a biography is, and maybe he'll nominate some other AfD's for biographies that have Personal sections in them(all). Or, he could just help us fully wikify the page and try to be constructive. This is wikipedia, so instead of suggesting that something be done, maybe he ought to help? Drvoke 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page, not notable. Leibniz 23:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just speculation. Literally no concrete facts except the episode name (which gets zero Google hits). --zenohockey 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listing Wikipedia as a bad sources disclaimer is because anyone can edit it, and it was added following the addition of an obviously fake title (Simpsons Christmas Stories II), and the last time I checked that page was still there. Just because somebody rightfully said that things posted on this website should be taken with a grain of salt, doesn't mean you can delete an article. It's in the copyright database, IT IS AN OFFICIAL TITLE.
What is the point of deleting an article when in a few weeks it will just be recreated?
I'd really love to know why we never get this sort of argument about any other episode we know nothing about!
The result was merge and redirect to Amalgam Comics. --- Deville (Talk) 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't needed at all. It's fancruft. All the comics mentioned never existed. Fictional comics mentioned in Amalgam comics aren't very useful. RobJ1981 00:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor host of local public access cable show. Minimal GHits. Richfife 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]