The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to promote a band that fails WP:MUSIC; no releases yet. Prod tag was removed. Also see afds for Tarek Moore and Full-Frontal. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editors! My name is Kiera bateman and i'm writing to you to confirm the bands authenticity. They were signed onto Sony/BMG in Australia on i believe late 2005. The band memebers are Tarek moore and Ryan Joseph Sheperd. They do have a current album out in australia called "full fontal" which is doing quite well in the aussie charts. They are what australia calls the new "katalyst", they are the younger versions of our old aussie punk band.
The result was delete. I'm closing this one early per the overwhelming concensus of the participants. If someone can provide the reliable sources the discussion's participants couldn't find, I have no objection to recreation. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax; there is no Senator or prospective presidential candidate by this name. Prod was deleted by anon author with no explanation. Russ Blau (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Glen 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this group may exist in fiction, it has in no way been proven to exist in reality, the citations source dubious articles and messages, and it seems to cite fiction as fact. This is a complete hoax.WilliamC24 00:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I prodded this on the basis that it is a non-notable piece of spyware, and Wikipedia is not a directory of spyware. (For those who take notice of such things, there are no google news hits, no relevent google groups hits, and most of the relevent web hits are forums where people are discussing how to remove it.) Also, based on the comment left when the prod tag was removed ("No other information sources Think-Adz"[1]) this may be original research. AJR | Talk 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query Wikipedia may not be a directory of spyware, per se, but it is a directory of information entries. The reason articles do not exist on Google, relating to this software, is that noone has prepared any (and most likely will shortly). The majority of Google hits are indeed forums entries, as that is the only medium the average user has to discuss this software. Thus the Wiki entry to inform others. But if original research cannot be sourced, and there is no information available, how can one inform others?
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is an suburban Australian street with no claims made for any notability whatsoever. As such, it's either show those claims, or go. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied per author request. -Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Author-removed prod (well, it was removed by an IP which I strongly suspect was the author). What we have here is an excerpt of a novel which is being written - it's not even at the stage of using Wikipedia to get a publisher to have a look at it, which would be a no-no anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closing early because we already have very clear consensus. Mangojuicetalk 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. This kind of nitpicky trivia really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Djcartwright 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete: No context nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 03:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax and has no context. Midnightcomm 02:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is is not a notable publication. It describes an online company newsletter. According to WP:WEB, the article MUST meet any ONE of the following criteria:
The subject of this article meets NONE of these criteria.
In addition, a PROD was put on this article earlier. The original author of the article removed the PROD in bad faith by NEITHER:
a) making any improvements or changes to the article to show that the subject was notable OR
b) by even acknowledging the concerns expressed by the PROD and making any defense of the article on grounds that it MIGHT be notable. As such, I propose that the article is deleted as per WP:NN, and WP:WEB guidlines -- Jayron32 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per Calton. Fits clearly into the CSD A7 criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CVG league simulation with no assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This movie was originally slated for shooting in August of 2003. So far, pretty much nothing official has been released other than the synopsis:
A guy intends to woo the women he loves by using romantic ideas from famous films.
Here's the IMDB page, which hasn't been updated in about a year and a half. I think it's crystal balling and should be removed because there is no actual information about the movie to be found anywhere. Wafulz 03:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Glen 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article, creator and sole editor is its subject. Subject is not notable, and the user's mainspace contribs are only to articles about or related to himself. A move to User:Shantroywells' userspace would be more appropriate. Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.coloarts.state.co.us/news/report/FY03_Annual_Report.pdf#search=%22colorado%20council%20on%20the%20arts%20shan%20wells%22, pg. 8 http://www.durangotelegraph.com/telegraph.php?inc=/06-08-10/quick.htm bottom article http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/artnetnews/artnetnews8-19-99.asp, seventh article down Shantroywells 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A high school basketball coach. Apparently never went on to do anything more than coaching at the high school level. No google hits. Delete —Brim 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was complex.
The deletion nomination was a very poor one. Much of the lengthy (but commendably cordial) debate below could have been avoided by a well researched deletion nomination. No biscuit.
The issue of verification was raised, and is the critical discourse here. Of the sources tendered as reliable sources, only the The UTD Mercury is without debate. Thanks to the fantastic research by ImmortalGoddezz, most would concede Brand Republic as a reliable source as well.
But not a very good one in this case. A source's reliability is not uniform. The Times is not the best resource on itself. Brand Republic can probably be counted on to get it's big stories factually correct, but a little one-page lacks the editorial oversight required of a secondary source.
An article with only one reliable source is standing on very thin legs.
However, another positive argument was presented, that this was "notable." Many editors did not provide a reasoning beyond "it is." No biscuit for them, too. Evidence of notability was given as number of Google hits, an on-line poll, least common denominator, and the previously mentioned Brand Republic/Orange marketing piece.
Google hits are not a reliable source when demonstrating notability. On-line polls except in very special circumstances are not even a reliable source of their own existance. Working upwards from the lowest bar in the form of "if you've kept foo we must keep bar" fail to understand that Wikipedia isn't perfect yet. Thus we must again fall back on the Brand Republic/Orange piece, like a dog returns to its bone.
Getting picked up by a major retailer for an ad campaign does not count as "independent distribution"as the web material guideline discusses. Questions of inclusion at this level defer to consensus, both as measured in this small sample and as demonstrated over time.
There was no consensus to delete this article at this time.
brenneman {L} 12:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this page yesterday as a repost, but since the last AFD had been a while ago, I'll see what others think. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement -Nv8200p talk 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. —Xezbeth 06:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of a previously deleted article entitled Gurg (which, incidentally, has a hanging nomination tag on it because I can't figure out how to finish a second nomination), one sentence dicdef, not especially notable. Djcartwright 04:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "upcoming" band musician. Delete. —Brim 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod that I disagree with, so I am taking it here instead (in the interests of democracy etc.) Nominator of Prod gave following reasons: "Virtually non-notable. Deserves nothing more than a small sidenote in the Victoria University of Wellington page." Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC) "[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 04:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Kusma (討論) 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Donkdonk 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Can you say spamvertisement?[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of non-notable member of non-notable band Katalyst (also nominated for deletion); prod tag was removed without comment. See also nom for unreleased album Full-Frontal OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album from Katalyst, band that fails WP:MUSIC; prod tag was removed without comment. See also afds for Katalyst and Tarek Moore. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. As the nominator explains in the nomination, xe wants an article merger, which does not involve deletion at any stage. Please read Wikipedia:Merge for the correct way to perform article mergers. Uncle G 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a lot to say about them; I recommend combining all the fictitious families from the 'Godfather' trilogy, except the Corleones, onto one page. Djcartwright 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. As the nominator explains in the nomination, xe wants an article merger, which does not involve deletion at any stage. Please read Wikipedia:Merge for the correct way to perform article mergers. Uncle G 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See "Barzini Crime Family" above. Djcartwright 05:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted by Sarah Ewart (A7) - Yomanganitalk 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, probable vanity article, little information, but too serious-looking for a speedy delete. Djcartwright 05:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by Luna Santin (talk · contribs)) (content was: '((db-blanked))')
Vanity. Clearly created by the same individual, judging by username of "madwap". Djcartwright 05:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR on a gaming meme based on a Penny Arcade comic about Lorne Lanning. Tried to find sources myself, but only found references to the penny arcade joke in question, and not really about a more widely established industry term. Wikipedia is not a "slang and idiom guide". Codemonkey 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep -- Samir धर्म 03:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badly written article about a charter school that just started this month Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the similar AFDs here and here, here's an even more unlimited, less useful list. No limits mean that this can never be usefully complete or particularly useful for navigation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this list is not comparable to the other two lists mentioned in the nomination. The other two lists were lists of real firearms, in films and videogames. In contrast to those two lists, this list excludes real weapons. It isn't a list of the weapons that appear in works of fiction. Unlike the other two lists, this list will not potentially have several thousand historical novels listed against "sword". It is the list of weapons that appear in works of fiction excluding all of the real ones, which narrows the scope of the list significantly from what, per the nomination, it appears some editors erroneously think the scope of the list to be. The crossbows, guns, swords, and so forth in historical fiction are all are excluded from this list because they are real weapons.
The only real reason for considering deleting this article, which hasn't even been mentioned in this discussion, is whether the categories (note the plural) do the job a lot better. They currently don't. The categories don't include duodecaplylatomate, the DeLameters, and the Sunbeam from the Lensman series, for example, and cannot include them because we (rightly) don't have individual articles on them. There are plenty other fictional weapons that similarly don't warrant whole articles to themselves. There is a clear place for this list to supplement the categories, and the list is neither too broadly construed to be maintainable nor too narrowly construed to be useful. Keep. Uncle G 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really worth an article? I am getting the munchies for delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[18], now I suspect there are more results to be found, but its probably a few hundred, not 10,000+. Gwernol 18:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a soapbox rant, not a coherent article, created by a user adding similar soapbox rants in other areas of Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 06:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben W Bell is beligerating against me and not assuming good faith in my contributions. I protest! He is the soapbox ranter, but for the worst causes. Drcaldev 07:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Drcaldev (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.[reply]
If the article were original research, then how comes it just recalls the opinion of Szasz, Chomsky, Escohotado. How many results does google give for those guys? Why don´t you follow the links to the proponents´s articles? Drcaldev 09:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"War on certain drugs" retrieves 1140 results on Google. "Disidencia farmacológica" (spanish term coined by Escohotado) retrieves 8 results in Google. Drcaldev 09:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A search for "drug war dissent" returns 58 hits in google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcaldev (talk • contribs)
Noam Chomsky, whom you should read before voting on issues you evidently ignore, says: "US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn't about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control". Chomsky on http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/223/noamchomsky.shtml
I ask for someone with knowledge of the matter to discuss. Ignorance brings censorhip and censorship preserves more ignorance. That's some vice. It would transform wikipedia in Hawkypedia. Are only prohibionists and scared propaganda victims interested in this very important issue? Drcaldev 05:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you read the article you will note it adscribes the actual coining of the term to Antonio Escohotado. So it´s not original. I´ll put the quotation with page number soon, but searching in spanish in google for "disidencia farmacológica" brings results, so the term can´t be invented by me, can it? And an american equivalent (though less academic in its formulation) is Drug War dissent, which gives 58 results in google...
The adjective pharmacological with the substantive dissidence are a possible and perfectly understandable description for certain political position, not original of mine, and which I try to describe in some detail.
And Chomsky doesn´t talk about pharmacological dissidence, he demonstrates it in his argumentation against drug war propaganda and strategies. He is called a dissident and he deals with pharmacological issues, doesn´t him? Drcaldev 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this was formatted like a conventional video game list, it would be entirely redlinks (bar one game). As it stands, it is a collection of external links and a forum for self-promotion/advertising. Prod was removed by an anonymous user with the comment: (Removed the removal request as this is a valid resource to illustrate the meaning of an online riddle or puzzle.) Marasmusine 06:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band; as far as I can see, does not meet any of the notability criteria. Brianyoumans 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: no consensus. Default to keep. Strong suggestion that there be a mortatorium on AfDing this anytime in the near future. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated as unverifiable. I quote from WP:V#Burden of evidence: " If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." All sources cited are self-published, or admit they perform no fact checking. I have noted the problems on the talk page. I have searched. I have requested a Lexis/Nexis search. I am convinced that no reliable source exists for this topic. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. theProject 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. Google gives lots of hits for what seems to be a German company, but none other than Wikipedia and the company itself for the Australian one. Prod removed because "notability asserted"? Delete --Pak21 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Couldn't see any actually relevant Google hits. (Prod contested by anon who apparently hadn't read WP:SOFTWARE) Delete --Pak21 08:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non notable website. See WP:NOT. It fails WP:notability & WP:WEB, NPOV and in my opinion should be deleted. MidgleyDJ 08:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was mention at Mozilla Firefox if anywhere, redirecting. W.marsh 18:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not conform to WP:NPOV and it is blatant advertising for a product which is not notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia WP:N tgheretford (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g7, author request. NawlinWiki 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy deletion with the comment: "Single user did not act in concert with every other editor in the talk page for Marconi's_role_in_the_history_of_radio, created multiple pages, of which this is one." For some reason, History of radio (more information) redirects to a page on Marconi which seems counterintuitive to me. A page titled "more information" should not focus on a single individual. Since this appears to be the result of a content dispute, I bring it here, rather than leave it on CSD. No vote from me until I figure out the background of all of this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I edited these pages to:-
Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Losing candidate in a state legislative race. Failed even to make it past the primary. The other offices that he's held don't meet notability criteria (WP:BIO) - they're not "international, national or statewide/provincewide" nor can he be described as a "major local political figure who receives (or received) significant press coverage". Lincolnite 09:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no online sources which mention this. I'd be surprised if there were any sources at all. It's unsourced, unverified, and probably made up in school by someone... The Land 09:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Highly non-notable, if every police officer deserves an article Wikipedia would be a collection of bureaucratic record Kuntan 09:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect or de-fork or whatever, it's done now. W.marsh 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy with the comment "Duplicate of content of Marconi's_role_in_the_history_of_radio which needs to be moved back to 'Invention of Radio'"; actually that's history of radio, I think. Either way this appears to be a POV fork but not a speedy candidate. There may be text worth merging, so this is not an open and shut case. Guy 10:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I edited these pages to:-
Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a neologism used primarily by the wikipedia community. The article's three links show it as an obscure neoligism. Also wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is dictionary definition article. It's "Popular Culture" is basically about its use on wikipedia. The whole article is completely unreferenced and full of original research. Anomo 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable nonsense neologism. WP:NOT for things made up in school one day Fram 11:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think this merits an article - should be part of Inheritance Trilogy. Cordless Larry 11:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was prod'd but user complained. Listing here instead. Doesn't seem notable. delete UtherSRG (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable primary school Pally01 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not much different than any other school article we have on WP. Just because it is a primary school is of course not a reason to delete it. bbx 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, reads like an advert. Cordless Larry 12:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs at Wikitravel. Cordless Larry 12:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_landmarks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_and_galleries_in_Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Visitor_attractions_in_Dublin etc etc etc should also be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.192.116.7 (talk) .
Maybe we should make the List of tourist attractions in Amsterdam also a catagory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.192.116.7 (talk) .
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn on discovery of sources and only "delete" was for lack of verification. Yomanganitalk 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands this is unsourced speculation. No google hits for this use of the term. Please remove another apparently made-up 'torture' from Wikipedia. The Land 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything on the web about this. Is it a hoax? MoRsE 13:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV neologism. Outside of Wikipedia, this term gets 0 hits.[33] Yes, racism has been a part of European culture for centuries, but that doesn't mean this is a proper or recognized way to conceptualize it, or that cultural bias has always even been linked to racism. The second link offered as a "reference" is complete garbage, btw. [link has since been removed by article author] Postdlf 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Bobet 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need for this list: category already exists covering same topic Cordless Larry 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep because the nominator explicity mentions article merger for this common mis-spelling at which an article has been grown. Article merger is what we do with duplicate articles, and does not involve deletion at any stage or any requirement for administrator intervention. When you see duplicate articles, your first port of call should not be AFD. Uncle G 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a page in Wikipedia about "Paolo Conte", which is the correct name of this artist (Paolo Conte), a little more complete than this one. I suggest merging them, or simply deleting the article "Paulo Conte". Mocambo 13:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, with no prejudice against someone creating a real article that isn't just an ad derived from their website. - Bobet 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite pleas with the article creator, this article continues to do nothing to explain the importance of this company. It's written like a company web site, although it's apparently not a copy (though a former version was deleted as copyvio). WP:NPOV is a problem here, and as long as the creator is the only one editing the article it will continue to be. So, delete. Mangojuicetalk 13:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an advert, and only slightly less of a copyright violation, of the blurb on the company's own web site, than the previously deleted version. Delete. Uncle G 01:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert created by user:Wastedyouthclothing. -- RHaworth 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for non-notable company. -- RHaworth 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio. Pure vanity, created by user:VSkow. -- RHaworth 13:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio, probable vanity. -- RHaworth 13:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. merge possible W.marsh 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though there is a website [34] of this School but looks like an Advertisment and unimportant to me. --Marwatt 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 18:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources on this, therefore it violates Wikipedia:Verifiablity. Google search shows a small number of hits on this, almost all coming from this article, or from another wikipedia article which mentions this term. The only other mention I could find on this was at http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article.aspx?ref=512878 where the word is used, but not defined or explained. Also note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the mere existence of the word is not justification for an article here Xyzzyplugh 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable game. It fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. The title and the word "game" get 19 unique search engine hits, none of them worth anything. Prod removed by creator. Erechtheus 14:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs at Wikitravel. Cordless Larry 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author has created three pages that look like advertising: Water fresh, Waterfresh, and Waterfresh group Do we need all three, and are these articles merely advertising in disguise? Also, have had problems with the article's creator, who removes valid AfD tags. Johnbrownsbody 15:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete as a dictionary definition just yet. Should be wikified and probably moved though. W.marsh 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a neologism with no common use. A Google search of the term brings up two websites on geocities and tripod, both created by the same person. Anyway, original research and non-verifiable. Wafulz 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A random collection of contextless and often ill-defined or completely undefined terms vaguely related to Superman's homeworld. No real-world content or context and no hope for same, no source except direct observation of the comics themselves. The important ones are ably covered in their own articles or related ones, and the unimportant ones don't need to be covered at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible. W.marsh 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to merge with WP.
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, edits of substance from page creator only, solely linked to by articles about Norman Lowell which were also created by same user.
I googled Maltafly. The results brought up a mix of (1) Wikipedia and its mirrors, (2) references to it solely in the context of Norman Lowell and (3) miscellaneous porn sites.
Please see discussion on Talk:Norman Lowell. --SandyDancer 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contested prod, information is unencyclopedic, much seems to be speculation (legend has it...). Fails the "would someone on the other side of the world care?" test. Not notable outside of the Queen's Community. Chabuk 15:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a rambling essay, not an encyclopedic article. It doesn't appear to have a specific subject, and it doesn't appear (to me at least) that it could be improved with cleanup, therefore I propose delete. Akradecki 15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely, Marika Herskovic 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO for notability -Nv8200p talk 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He does not meet WP:BIO. "Planting churches" might be a notable and important activity to the people who attend those churches, but for the rest of the world it's just not a significant achievement. -IceCreamAntisocial 13:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn website--Dsfbs 16:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
spam--Dsfbs 16:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Notable football website, provides match reports for all UK teams as well as League Tables, Transfers and stats. Forbsey 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally 1000s of football related websites. Never even heard of this one before. Completely non notable and definitely spam IMO Dodge 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn company--Dsfbs 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn books--Dsfbs 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Dsfbs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an advertisement for a very minor magazine. Google can't even find it, and no website is given. There is no assertion of notability. This article is unverifiable advertising. --Wafulz 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing was created in November, 2005 and almost immediately tagged db-bio. Was de-speedied as they are local talk show hosts and tagged for clean-up the next day. I cleaned the thing up, but when I googled for "Dave and Darren" +WXLP, I got only 16 unique google hits.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazoness series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazoness Series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! single card articles. Also, copyvio by directly copying card text. Interrobamf 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep, bad faith nom by SPA. Aaron 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE nn dogs--Zosdp 18:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this up for deletion? It's on the main page as a featured article, and this user gives no reason for deletion. kraagenskul 26 September 2006
The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 03:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all obvious to me which of the various statements in this unreferenced monograph is supposed to amount to a claim of notability, and the 63 unique Googles did not help me to find out. Guy 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I've referenced a lot of stuff in the article and added a "significance" section. Berliner has a significant reputation in contemporary British musical theatre. I wanted to leave it to other specialists to add to the article and contribute footnotes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.132.41 (talk • contribs)
Hi, yes, one user making the page, that would be me - there's hardly been time for much organic development of the page before the deletion debate started... British folk-rock musical theatre is kind of a specialised interest field, please just give it time. I'm just going on what information I've been provided. Please give it time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.179.27 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was speedy kept per WP:SNOW. Plenty of references around; a quick search of JSTOR reveals a couple dozen hits. Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been tagged with the ((unverified)) and ((originalresearch)) tags since the begining of September and has received no attention with regard to the additon of sources citing usage or coinage of this neologism. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable defunct band that does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. The article is replete with unverified and unsourced statements (including self-acknowledged "rumours" as sources). I had removed all unverified/unsourced statements, but another editor not only replaced that info, but also replaced all the grammatical errors. While not a reason for deletion per se, additional problems with the article is that it uses a large amount of non-roman characters and includes a non-encyclopedic trivia section. There are also problems trying to verify any information on this band, as there are other bands around the world using the same name. Agent 86 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Interrobamf 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The clearly applicable policy in fact is Wikipedia:No original research, as one can see by reading Talk:List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events). The author (according to the talk page discussion) never states that the number 13 is special in this series of books, and the idea that it is is an inference that is being drawn, with no evidence presented that this analysis and conclusion have already been made outside of Wikipedia, by Wikipedia editors. Searching, I can find no such evidence, either. Arguments that it is "obvious" don't wash. Cases for other numbers, such as 26, are equally "obvious". One can find apparent "codes" in any reasonably substantial work of fiction, if one works hard enough. Such work is original research unless it has already been done and documented outside of Wikipedia first. Delete. Uncle G 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep (I will resist the temptation I often have to write Ultra Strong Keep). The prevalence of the number 13 in the books is widely recognised. This information is unverified rather than unverifiable. Merge if necessary. Mallanox 00:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn Mallanox 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the writer of this article is the Sam Sloan that I've read about, his credibility is lacking, and the article cites no sources. From a chess point of view, this person is completely off the map. Maybe a Tunisian expert can justify his inclusion from that perspective. Also, it has the appearance of a vanity page. YechielMan 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as no one has recomended deletion (the nominator abstained) after 14 days. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible non-notable. Only assertation of notability is of first climb of The Rambla Direct. I abstain as I don't know much about rock climbing Hopefully someone more knowledgable in rock climbing could verify notability. At the very least, this article could use some clean-up. Clamster5 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As asserted in article, I think notability is not sufficient. Delete if that's all that there is. --Nlu (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete as obvious hoax. JDoorjam Talk 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about Waspard, attempting to extend a practical joke in Robert Popper's books, The Timewaster's Letters. Apt really. (FYI: google search) Mr Stephen 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm you obviously missed the point about Robin Cooper, for that was name, and his book. It was a waste of time in trying to educate people about the finer things in the world, such as waspard, I thought that might be something that wikipedia might understand and support. Mjenkins —The preceding comment was Mjenkins (talk • contribs) first contribution.
I refer users to my notice on the page, regarding the encyclopaedia I own from the times of the Empire. I am happy to photocopy and distribute the reference in my personal collection (I am sure that this tome is now public domain!). Jamesr84
Thank you for your support regarding my article - There are, few reliable sources on the topic on the internet regarding waspard. Although I am in possession of several reference papers, which include how to make ‘waspard’, and it is something which I have grown up with. I can quote several titles and there relevant ISBN numbers, which relate to waspard directly. Please take advantage of the address I provided, if you wish to make further research, Best-kept Secrets of the Woman’s Institute, traditional cookery and advice for the 21st century (ISBN 0-74323-897-4) Good Housekeeping Cookery Book, the classic cookery book completely revised. (ISBN 0-85223-420-1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpcrayford (talk • contribs)
I have provided two very reputable primary sources. I would hope that if the topic interests you enough you would consider reading them, maybe if you consider increasing the depth of your research you will conclude that this is a suitable page for Wikipedia and deserves a place here. Many Thanks P. Longhurst
Many thanks P. Longhurst
The result was delete. W.marsh 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This can be read in conjunction with the AfD nomination for the article Papaya (group). NN person who does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. No sources or verification provided. Main portion of article appears to be a copyvio of this. Everything beyond that part of the article is generic material not specific to this biography. The only external link (source?) is to a non-english language website. Agent 86 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDILY DELETED as vandalism. Take it to Uncyclopedia, but do be careful to be funny and not just stupid. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable event, possible hoax, can find no information on this alleged event. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated the very similar page PetDuel, created by the same editor. Mr Stephen 20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Ah yes, sorry, that was a beginners mistake! Apologies![reply]
DO NOT DELETE
You are all fools, the internet is the not the source of all the world's information, 'i did a search on google and nothing came up, it must be fake!'. I am willing to give a first hand account of the both Pet Duel II and III. I used to reside at 45 Bagers Farm Road, a short drive from the Anchor Inn, to save you the trouble of verifying this address on google, I have posted a link to multi map. Although I do no condone blood sports, my neighbour was in truth was the owner of a small Staffordshire Pit-bull Terrier, which competed, sadly unsuccessfully, in Pet Duel III
Thanks P. Longhurst
waspard
I wished to join the wikipedia community, and have recieved nothing but scorn. I wished to write a good article, and could not work out what to write about, until my dad's scrapbook reminded me of the silly competition that got out of hand in our pub. For your information, I used to live there, and despite my good friends efforts to the contrary, it is still open. http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/19/19971/Anchor_Inn/Lower_Froyle I would also like to know when commenting and participating actively in a public debate meant that anything that came out of your mouth is lies? What has me commenting about a seperate article got to do with my article? Is this because I disagreed with your point of view? To parody myself perhaps this reminds us all of a famous nation in the 1930s. I have the proof by the way, but as I am new I have yet to 1. Upload, 2. Reference. I was hoping with some sort of help in doing this, rather than damnation. Do I need to scan in the paper cuttings? Upload the photographs? Help would be nice, as I believe this is a very entertaining part of Hampshire's local history, and one that people should be aware of, as it shows how a small silly event can get out of hand. Much like National Socialism.
I'm sorry, my use of those references were entirely ironic. I assume you're not from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No-one from my town has said it never happened. Please ammend your statement accordingly, as that is a complete falsification. I would not want people to pass judgement on reading that blatant lie. Thanks.
Oh for gods sake PLEASE PLEASE do some research! Why comment on an article you know NOTHING about? Hampshire is a county! Let me put it in layman's terms. I am from San Diego, and my friend is from San Francisco. We are both from California. We are not, from the same town. I do not know his local business, as it is obviously not local to me! Mon Dieu! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesr84 (talk • contribs) .
thanks P. Longhurst —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpcrayford (talk • contribs) .
Right, with all due respect, will you please read what I write. I have said do your research in respect to knowing what Hampshire is, or in your case, what it certainly is not. Secondly, I stated QUITE CLEARLY, that I am but a humble beginner, and I extended a warm handshake to you, my friend and subject in the Great Imperial Colonies, and asked for assistance. I have the sources, and I wish to put them on. As stated before, I do not know how. I am asking for assistance with this. You cannot find reference for this anywhere, as a someone said, that is because many things live outside of Google. I for instance, cannot be found on Google, but I most certainly exsist. Faith too, is absent on Google, and yet I know many who have found that. Thank you in advance, and Godspeed.
The LORD will demonstrate his holy power before the eyes of all the nations. The ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God." - Isaiah 52:10
Is swearing at me and telling me to go away really in the spirit of wikipedia? I have offered the proof, I am not lying! I merely wished to make a contribution. Thank you for your help, rather than saying, please come forth with the sources, this is how you put them into the article, you use deplorable language and insults. I think I may just go away, this is certainly not a very nice community.
I would also like to point out that i would quite happily 'upwikiload' my sources regarding Waspard (my favourite condiment). Its funny you say that your not on Google either, the same thing happened to me, maybe google needs to cite more sources, or we might have to take google out of the 'wikifunclub'. Allah akbar
Thanks P. Longhurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpcrayford (talk • contribs)
I wish people would read what is written before comment. I wish to post the sources, so that all of the morons who live life by the judge before trial philosophy can apologise to me. However, as I have written a millions times before, an offer of some assistance would be welcome. If this is not possible; i.e. if you don't want me to upload the files, and help source the article, then this would be very distressing. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesr84 (talk • contribs)
The Pet Duel debate seems to have become quite quiet now that some assistance has been requested. Perhaps the 'wikicommunity' allows it's pupils only to baldly critisize people contibutions, rather than offer assistance or even constructive critisism.
Many thanks P. Longhurst
The result was keep. Don't know if this should affect the merge discussion; if there is consensus on that, it wasn't clear here. Luna Santin 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable summer camp. Delete exolon 19:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was transwiki. W.marsh 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a dictionary-style definition that an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as empty, nonsense, whatever. Guy 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a hoax
As opposed to the Bandarban town described in Bandarban District this article is a hoax, and it should go for a speedy deletion. - Aditya Kabir 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, unsourced, and likely a hoax. Nonpareility 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advert and copyright problem, ought to be speedyable. Spamlinks were taken out (together with the "reprinted with permission" part). This one was deprodded, same situation with Travel in Costa Rica. All content copied from www.infocostarica.com by the same user, presumably the owner of the site, used to spam Costa Rica with internal and external links. Femto 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as copyvio. W.marsh 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
same as for Travel in Costa Rica above Femto 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like spam, cites no sources, doesn't seem to be notable, author refuses attempts to verify notability--205.188.116.66 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been stolen from other websites all that I have written about is from first hand knowledge. bobsmith319.
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
notability not established - CobaltBlueTony 16:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly, the slang used at a high school. Contested Prod. Prod removed with claim that it can be verified from recently published "Dictionary of Shrewsbury Slang". Since the existence of such a book cannot be verified, I'll take that as a sign that the whole thing is Something made up in school, and still Unverifiable. -- Fan-1967 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright issues dealt with. Thε Halo Θ 09:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Copyright vio from this site (a translated version of which is here). Unfortunatly, the article was created more than 48 hours ago, so can not be speedy deleted under A8. Delete the article, and recreate without the copy vio. Thε Halo Θ 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep Nominator regrets nomination, all other votes to keep. Sam Vimes | Address me 07:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page contains a bare minimum of information, and unlike other pages, the topic of the page is a little known topic on which too much of information cannot be found.I feel it would be best if this article was to be deleted.Thank You. Doctor Evil 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy but not a speedy candidate. An ale house popular with students. There was a stabbing there once. Er, that's it. Guy 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as nn-group but notability is asserted, rather unconvincingly. The bluelinks are all of questionable notability, as the "where are they now" section makes clear. Guy 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears autobiographical, vanity:
Article has a non-notable subject:
Well-honed skills of self-promotion and local recognition in limited contexts is insufficient to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
Drapeau06 21:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. Consensus seems to be to not have this article as a standalone, but to merge it to the main article. I am doing a simple redirect so people can merge the information they want. W.marsh 16:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft at best. That 70's Show was a hit show, but it certainly doesn't need a trivia page. Find a site with all the trivia, and put a link to it on the main That 70's Show page, and that's good enough RobJ1981 21:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nom started by Beatdown. No reason given. Yomanganitalk 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason #1 The reason you can't delete this webpage is because it contains an important list of featured people that were able to be successful but didn't go through life in the same way, instead they chose a vagrants life, but payed out. This will make people think twice about cultural norms and in public education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.90.147 (talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn band--Sacv 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,<ref name="note" /> reported in notable and verifiable sources.[1]
- Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
- Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
I don't know enough about formatting or schematics, but if I knew what I was doing, I probably would have made the article a stub.
Ian Evil 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Luna Santin 06:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable company/self-promotional ad - (prod removed by anon IP) ArmadilloFromHell 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ryūlóng 04:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn FPGA brands --Sacv 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Ryūlóng 04:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
spam--Sacv 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Naconkantari 12:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable vanity about a questionably notable author (~600 Google results). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment details of two books about to be published written by Precious Williams http://www.amazon.com/Write-What-You-Know-Experiences/dp/1582974446/sr=1-1/qid=1159414763/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3202160-7576906?ie=UTF8&s=books http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HST/is_2_7/ai_n12937367 Igbogirl 03:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: speedy keep due to bad faith nom by new user; no reason for deletion nomination provided. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox! Feijuada 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete no references or improvements ever appeared, despite promises. If rewritten should cite some kind of source. W.marsh 16:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, at least given the lack of context. Cordless Larry 22:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: speedy keep due to bad faith nom by new user, possible single purpose account/vandal. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fancruft and original resarch , this company is not group.--Soor 22:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Steel 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As this webhost does not appear to meet any of the Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) criteria, I'm inclined to call this article an adpage. -choster 22:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, nothing is verifiable. PROD tag added earlier this week was deleted by anon user without explanation. QazPlm 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around for nearly a year without any content that demonstrates notability. Delete. BlueValour 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete vanity spam. Guy 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article; does not satisfy NPOV in the slightest EngineerScotty 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--EngineerScotty 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again I call to your attention this serious issue of retaliation. No user should have to be bulleyed when expressing concerns about administrators. This is not what Wikepedia is about.NYer 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this entry since it is not an autobio and it is cited by government publications. Thank you.
Please ignore User:Zoe who is a friend of the above bulleys. This is not what Wikepedia is about.
The result was delete vanity spam. Guy 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity; part of a walled garden on the work of Sandy Straus EngineerScotty 23:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--EngineerScotty 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
' EngineerScotty, Equendil, and Wildthing61476 are retaliating against me User:NYer for earlier complaints I made against certain Wikipedia administrators. They are attempting to delete or get others to delete my entries. Please DO NOT delete this entry. Furthermore, they are not medical doctors or biomedical engineers and this information is cited by government sources. Thank you.NYer 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
****Please ignore User:Zoe who is exploiting his friendship with bulleys to retaliate and delete the work of others.
''''Wildthing61476, what is your problem? Is it this article or are you just angry because others are seeking to retaliate because I voiced concern about some administrators. It's rather unprofessional for anyone to act this way. Is this what Wikepedia is about? Angry administrators and the friends they gather to delete the work of others? That is the lowest denominator. And it is certainly not an excuse to delete the work of others.NYer 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)''''[reply]
The result was delete vanity spam Guy 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity; 4 other articles from same source also going to AfD EngineerScotty 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--EngineerScotty 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete vanity spam Guy 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity EngineerScotty 00:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--EngineerScotty 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete vanity spam. Guy 11:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article. EngineerScotty 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
--EngineerScotty 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore Calton, another friend of EngineerScotty and Equendil who seeks to retailiate against me and therefore delete all of my entries under false allegations and nonsensical remarks.NYer 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, seems to fail WP:WEB, has been deleted in the past, see [45]. Khatru2 04:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]