< January 30 | February 1 > |
---|
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
Petzval used his mathematic skills to calculate and construct a lens having a large aperture in order to reduce the shutter time needed for a correct exposure of the photographic film used in those days. He was the first or at least one of the first who took the optical abberations into account. He succeeded very well: by reducing the optical abberations his lenses gave sharp, crisp pictures. His concept had the limitation that is was only suited for lenses with a longer focal length, which made them particulary suited for making portraits.
The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page. Has been kept in the first three nominations because of the Slate article. Authoring a slate article does not in and of itself make someone notable. There would have to be another source backing up the claim that the Slate article resulted in "internet-based notoriety." Savidan 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability and the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films). The only source is from IMDb. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --- RockMFR 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-admitted unverifiable legend; Google returns no reliable sources mentioning this. Possibly a hoax. Flyingtoaster1337 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged and redirected to Bingo (US). Avi 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The game really exists, but (as a simple Google search will show) there are lots of different versions of the game--the one in the article is only one version (which is not verified). The article (by presenting only one version of the game without sources) seems to violate WP:NOR. Black Falcon 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A Train take the 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previousl deleted in April 2006, though according to the admin that saw the ((db-repost)) tag, the content was different. Anyway, I couldn't find any reliable sources for verification. Everything that I found was just a reprinted press release. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Wafulz 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD left the way open for a repost. Is this now sufficiently unspammy? Personally I would be happier if the article had not been written by a newbie called RussellJones. -- RHaworth 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged as VfD but I don't see any relevant discussion there; Was listed on AfD but no actual nom was written. Some hidden text was added to the XfD template "Why when I search for The Blast does this article come up. I checked the deletion records and an article for this guy Ray Foley has already been deleted, because he is no one of worth". I have no idea what should be happening with this page or what that even means, so I'm listing here for discussion. As this is a procedural nom, I abstain. DMacks 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable website. Alexa rank of only around 20k Computerjoe's talk 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. MER-C 09:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A POVish "cherry picked" list. Little or no references to support inclusion. Delete and salt the Earth. --Pizzazz 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)— Pizzazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Please note the nominator's sole contribution to Wikipedia is this AfD Special:Contributions/Pizzazz does that say Wikipedia:Sock puppetry ? signed Jeepday 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. A Train take the 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unencyclopedic. All it materially consisted of was a cut and paste from the Internet Sacred Text Archive from a source dating to somewhere in the 1800s, meaning that it is possibly completely inaccurate with respect to modern obligations. Without that, as the article currently stands, there is nothing else to say about the topic that isn't already mentioned in the main Freemasonry article. MSJapan 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
undisclosed conflict of interest which they should at least voluntarily disclose in their votes. Since they have not done so, you should consider discounting their vote due to this conflict. The following users I beleive to be Freemasons: ALR, Blueboar, MSJapan, Grye, WegianWarrior. Frater Xyzzy 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in the main Freemasonry article.". Now that there is no copy vio his reason for AFD'ing the article is null and void. Seraphim 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A plague on both your houses. The anti-masons are so desparate to include whatever material they can - as such, they are constantly creating articles like this one that are basically crufty crap but refrenced. The masons are so desparate to hide whatever stupid secrets they have that they are constantly flying right off the handle with what amounts to serial revert-wars and mass procedural attacks on anything that purports to reveal the sooper sekrits. Yet another case where if I was in charge, I'd get rid of each and every one of you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability at all. Term appears to have been invented by, and used only by, the creator and primary editor of the article. Single link is to the creator's personal site. Doctormatt 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete arguments are stronger, and there is no double jeapordy in Wiki. An article which is notable will survive all reasonable XfD's. Avi 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this article has come up for debate twice before and voted to keep, but since then it seems a more stringent consensus has been reached and a lot more esoteric programming languages have been deleted as non-notable, including the entire List of esoteric programming languages. Perhaps the best argument in favor of this article's non-notability though is this article is almost completely orphaned except for a link at the bottom of Quine (computing); unlike Brainfuck or Befunge, it's seemingly not notable enough to be mentioned in the main Esoteric programming language article. Krimpet 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a combined article, any relevant information can be in the individuals articles Winterborn 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Delete - The deletes have the upper hand, and the issues pertaining to WP:NOT an indiscrimant collection of information and the lack of sources push this over the line.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rather uncyclopedic, WP:NOT a resterant menu or a indiscriminate collection of information, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The are several reasons I created the article:
Based on these facts, the 'Burger King menu items article is not trivia or just a list of menu items, but instead it helps to show some of the corporate strategies (e.g. demographic targeting, co-branding and local market awareness) BK employs in competing in the global market.
In addition, I am sure that if you research the Wikipedia database you will find similar precedence of having a separate article relating to products sold by a corporation.
Jerem43 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
wat's sup 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. as redundant and arbitrary. Opabinia regalis 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a list of articles in a category. Delete as redundant material. Exarion 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Avi 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page markets non-notable, one-man training consultancy Ronnotel 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is also including Community Chest cards. Their page content seems to qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information, the majority of which is devoted to listing the text on each card. Information pertaining to the dates of their introduction already exists in the article History of the board game Monopoly. ~ PseudoSudo 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed election candidate, got 43% of the vote in a seat in the South Australian election. No other notability. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A failed election candidate in the 2006 South Australian election. No other notability, sitting on a local council is not sufficient, in Australia, the local council is only responsible for garbage collection, gardening services. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate in the 2006 South Australian election - lost badly (33% to 67%) of vote in a seat which she had no chance of winning. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
January 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NonNotable entry, unable to find sources for it, talk page suggests that it was created by a member. MPoint 03:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to douche. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism RedHillian 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this article was kept before in afd but with invalid WP:ILIKEIT reasoning here, rather uncyclopedic, WP:NOT a resterant menu or a indiscriminate collection of information, looks like every country has their own versions of a mc'donalds menu making it a endless list, unsourced see WP:V, and loaded with WP:OR, similar afd going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items Delete Jaranda wat's sup 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot state it any better than RockMFR. The article is decent. I think that half of the people who are voting for deletion are doing so because of McDonald's status as a large multination American corporation. Apfox 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerem43 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerem43 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the McDonald's menu items article is a complete mess, but it does not deserve to be deleted. So I've added a Rewrite tag to the article. TheListUpdater 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating:
Seems to be self-promotion, not notable, and no verifiability other than their website Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:WEB. A slate article alone is not enough; no evidence that anyone off the internet every heard or wrote about this. Savidan 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A Train take the 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Unverifiable, and of local interest only. Note: PROD tag removed by IP editor with no explanation. FreplySpang 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A Train take the 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft and/or fancruft. "Things and events" for one game (or even a series) don't need a list page here. Take it to a video game wiki. Wikipedia isn't a discriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A Train take the 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If and when this album is ever released, I'm sure it will meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. The problem, as it currently stands, is that there are no reliable sources available to support this article. The scheduled release date, much like the rest of the article, changes from week to week. Suggest immediate deletion without prejudice against recreation once said sources turn up. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rare self-nomination- I wrote a bit of this article because when I found it it was a list and I was trying to broaden its potential. But, it's redundant to the plot summaries of the episode articles and to the article on cheese-eating surrender monkeys, and the list seems to attract OR- in case you're curious, Homer was originally listed as a Democrat, was then categorized as a Republican, and is now labelled a communist. I'm curious as to whether it will survive, I abstain. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Navou banter 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Modahl is Not Notable. Additionally, information in articly is unverifiable and most likely incorrect. Rahzel 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Shawnc 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Agathoclea. MER-C 12:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable neologism. superapathyman 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A Train take the 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability Shawnc 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be NN/unencyclopedic/webcomic cruft —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for the theories/books/products/services of one psychiatrist. No evidence that these theories are influential, widely recognized, or notable. No external sources. And did I mention, blatantly promotional?
The result was delete. While the DFBot summary has this AfD listed under no consensus (50%), the two keep and one weak keep votes seem to provide little to no support for their arguments, other than noting that there are stubs just as bad as this one in Wikipedia. Delete arguments on the other hand provide strong support, and the sudden waivering of former "keep" voters to neutral or delete suggests to me a deletion consensus. Ultimately, there's nothing in this article really worth saving and no one with enough knowledge or ability to research the topic to approve it. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod tag was removed but no information on notability was added to the article. Google search revealed nothing notable about location. Fails WP:N. (see below, I changed my stance to neutral upon learning about precedent in this area) janejellyroll 07:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely notable; there's nothing to say but what's in the Airplane! article. Shay Guy 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this professor notable? I think not quite enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about non-existent ice hockey league. Google search for "'international mini hockey league' -wikipedia" gets no Google hits. The article itself is a cut-and-paste job of the United Hockey League article, with some team names ando ther words changed in some places. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7 and G11. Sr13 07:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Website. Alexa page rank of 1,727,676: furthermore, all Alexa metrics shown with trend indicators (rank, page views per user, reach) are shown as being on a falling three-month trend. See [18]. Google hits seem to be almost entirely based on press releases released by the company itself. Suggest deletion based on lack of notability. The Anome 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above debate was closed when the article was deleted as WP:CSD#A7. It has since been recreated in somewhat larger form. I still find the notability rather dubious. >Radiant< 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion on the references:
Thank you for the response but Franchise Circle is listed among the other exhibitors. Can we rewrite the article to provide more notability, etc.??Cartermalloy 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — Cartermalloy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LivISOC, a specific society, and the same editor has now created this unsourced article about student Islamic societies in general. There is, to my eye, nothing here which is not entirely generic. Replace Islamic and faith with, say, engineering and profession, and the thing reads exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of a graphics artist, in my opinion it doesn't meet notability and has Conflict of interests. Prod tag was deleted by author. -- TexMurphy 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply from the author: i work for 20 year as an artist visual performance and exhibition in many countries. And i am a pioneer in visual art starting at a time were even the word "visualart" was not existent. I was as artist in EXPO Sevilla 1992, at ARTCORE_05 in paris, made visual performance in front of 400.000 people last year, what must happen to be accepted in wikipedia? Be an artist for 150 years? I don´t know a lot about wikipedia policy but i see a lot entries accepted from thing less important than my 20 years of hard work in art. How can i change the entry 2 be not deleted? ElGeko 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are each about a non-notable character who appears in at most three pages of a comic book that came out last week. None of them spoke. I was going to merge these into one article, but there wasn't even enough to justify that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article, claim to fame is winning a competition with an unknown number of participants and no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to University of Melbourne. Content already merged. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This material has just been copy/pasted from the relevant subheading on University of Melbourne. Given it is highly specific to UniMelb, there is no reason for it to have a page in its own right. Especially since it adds nothing new from the original section. Suicup 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is how to do it but, i've stated why there needs to be an extra site specifically dealing with growing esteem: Growing Esteem is significant because it is seen by some as a harbinger of a new two-tiered higher education system in Australia. The plan has been endorsed by the federal government as part of its plans to 'diversify' higher education institutions.
It is an important plan of greater significance than just melbourne university. I believe there may be a significant amount of searches on wikipedia for 'growing esteem' , and if this article is deleted people will not be able to find anything. Maxyk 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list of names. No encyclopedic value. Jvhertum 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A software library with no notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Google hasn't heard of it. Deprodded. Weregerbil 12:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, no references provided. Prod removed without comment. Marasmusine 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - brenneman 06:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable instructional DVDs. Unsourced. Contested prods. MER-C 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete A7. Navou banter 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merely a directory entry. No evidence of notability, no sources, no external links, no prose and no prod tag; nothing. MER-C 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ST47Talk 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion, but the article makes certain assertions of notability: A few (minor) awards, a spokesperson, and a claim that they are the largest prepaid debit card processor and marketer in the United States today. No opinion. yandman 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Although if someone wants to work on this per the concerns below, I will make the content available to you. W.marsh 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft, unverifiable, original research, you name it. Moogy (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of schools that may or may not have a relationship with the focal school (all relationship cells are "?"). Unreferenced, unclear, not really notable Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missing assertion of notability? Although admittedly he does yield a number of Google hits, including an IMDb entry. — Timwi 14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsensical and irrelevant. Green Eyes On Television 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus defaulting to "keep". I am not persuaded by the arguments that individual episodes are not notable: how then could they be awarded Emmy Awards? I also understand that this is a work in progress, in common with most of Wikipedia, and that older seasons will be brought into line. The delete arguments mostly appear to amount to "smash them all" which is hardly in the spirit of constructing an encyclopedia. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually no content in any of these articles. Z388 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official announcement of this game. --SkyWalker 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable losing contestnt on a reality television show. No claim to notability outside the show. Difficult to find references that are not PR from the article. Mikeblas 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Never played a league game, so fails WP:BIO on that account. Suggest text merged into Micky Quinn and this article deleted WikiGull 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
completely without merit. Joke article. All relevant content is already in Terry Wogan. Nssdfdsfds 11:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as a footballer and I don';t think all people who die from drug misuse are notable either. Suggest include details in his fathers page (Gordon Staniforth) WikiGull 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable losing reality show contestant. No "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" after the show ended. Little written about them, aside from PR splash from the show. Mikeblas 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g10 attack. NawlinWiki 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A short bio of user on multiple forums. No actual notability. Could be noted that the user has mistaken using the main wiki for a Userpage? Skully Collins Edits 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Good to see an effort made, but it only demonstrated the original point that there are no reliable sources for this subject. Opabinia regalis 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete lack of sourcing. A google search doesn't readily reveal any reliable sources. Almost all links are to a flash game of the same name, or downloads pages for websites for maps with this title or the occasional forum. Any information derived from those is original research. Fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason to keep this article. Crossmr 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was
Keep (nomination withdrawn) by Diez2
Has been prodded and de-prodded many times. There is no information on the substance in question other than its chemical formula and IUPAC official name. There is no verification either. I'm sure the article could be expanded (maybe), and I would really like to prod this (so that anyone can raise it back from the dead), but I would like to have this deleted until anyone can come up with more info on the substance. Diez2 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete unless someone can show this substance exists somewhere, even theoretically, other than a list of compounds put together in a textbook. Citicat 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The only claimed source isn't. If it's real terminology, it's obsolete and will never be more than a dicdef. Opabinia regalis 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, I don't see much room for expansion. It's been here since March 2005 and there has been nothing added since. Contested prod. Sable232 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has been relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, having said that, this is not an FS 1073C article. The article claims that it is sourced from FS 1073C. But I've just checked the two on-line versions linked to from Federal Standard 1037C#External links, and this concept is not listed. Several different searches lead me to no other sources.
It's worth noting that many of the the FS 1073C articles were created en bloc by 213.253.40.156 (talk · contribs) in 2002. This article was created by Wanton creation (talk · contribs) in 2005, and is that person's sole contribution. It is possible that it is hoax.
Therefore: This is a stub that has no (valid) sources, and for which no sources can be found after a reasonable search. It cannot be expanded beyond perpetual stub status; the only sources that it cites prove to be false; and, looking, I can find no alternative sources to use. Therefore this is both an unexpandable stub and unverifiable, and per Wikipedia:Deletion policy that means delete. Uncle G 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article got created on Jan 25, 2007 by Pleasantville. It was speedy deleted in a day or two by SlimVirgin per A7 (not-notability). Prompted by Pleasantville herself, and also by KSmrq, I restored it to have it go through the usual AfD process. Here are the arguments by these two people I have seen. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(These comments do not preclude Pleasantville and KSmrq from commenting again below, of course.) So I wonder what the community at large thinks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was
Keep (nomination withdrawn) by Diez2.
Not much notability, no verification. This article goes in a roundabout way in describing this person's life. The most notable thing he did was to open the club "54", with "some German friends." Incredibly vague, not much info. I say delete. Diez2 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:OR and WP:WINAD. Metrackle 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was moving to deletion review. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See previous AfD here
Relisting. A small private school which provides no reliable sources for its notability. Reads as an advertisment as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seems like a good job for a template. W.marsh 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is better implemented as a category, in my opinion. It is, however, currently being used in "succession boxes", so I'm not "prod"ing it. — CJewell (talk to me) 16:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete both W.marsh 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is newsworthy, not encyclopedia-worthy. These two individuals are not notable in and of themselves, their claim to notability rests on their being named as potential terrorist suspects by the US. Not enough for their own articles, and quite possibly not even enough to be mentioned on a list if there was one. Zunaid©® 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2007 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax presented as reality, with no reliable sources. A similar page -- Micronation of Gemnoviag -- was apparently speedily deleted before, and the user warned about vandalism. PubliusFL 17:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Cool Hand Luke 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion but contested. There is an assertion of notability here as the subject is a published author, though I'm not sure he meets WP:BIO. Regardless I figured it was only fair to give this the benefit of a community review. This is a procedural nomination, I have no real opinion here.--Isotope23 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:24.97.115.162 and User talk:Paulley, and my talk page, for some background on this. The anon has taken issue to this article and wants its deletion (I'm filing this AfD on the anon's behalf), believing it to be non-notable. The article itself doesn't have much sourcing, and it doesn't have any of the independent sources I'd expect to demonstrate notability. I don't know too much about this subject, though. I'm starting this AfD both because there has been a serious request (which to me is not worth rejecting out of hand) for the article's deletion, and because once the relevant arguments for keep/delete come out, hopefully the dispute between the anon and Paulley should calm down somewhat. --ais523 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article topic is non notable, google search results in 110 hits including wikipedia and other similar stuff. No reliable sources are provided for this alleged rabbi the whole article is full with unsourced original research with sentences like: "The speech may have been invented by Eustace Mullins or Strom Thurmond". CloneGuard 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by Shyam Bihari as "A7 Not notable person". ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as a speedy for patent nonsense, but it's not patent nonsense. However, no sources are cited and the article is hard to follow. I cleaned it up a bit so it's actually readable and did a preliminary Google search, but it's not the sort of thing I'd expect to find on Google anyway. I don't have any resources other than Google to look for information on obscure-but-possibly-notable people in India, so thought I'd send it to AFD hopeing that people who work in India-related topics can discern whether this is verifiable or not. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete W.marsh 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an advertisement for Microsoft's gimmick. It has no sources other than from Microsoft itself; the article doesn't meet WP:CORP (products and services) or WP:WEB. An anon made some edits after I prodded the article, but they didn't address these concerns. Lunch 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete. I just don't think it's notable enough (mostly sporadic forum and blog coverage as with most viral campaigns), and will fall out of interest very, very soon anyway as it's closed. -- Northgrove 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Changed opinion on this upon studying sources and the quality of this article. See comment below. -- Northgrove 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a dictionary, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (although I've already cleared up the worst of the POV problems this page had) JulesH 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Wrinkle. Sandstein 19:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO Neologism - zero hits in Google John Nagle 17:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I suggest Prune Fingers or Osmosis and Skin Wrinkles with a redirect from prune fingers since that's how I found most of the links. Some of these are more reliable sources than others but I got [20], [21], [22] (brief mention only but in scientific context) and [23] (google answers page with links to several other articles that I haven't had a chance to read yet). Plymouths 08:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11, attack page (vague allegations of homosexuality, other namecalling) and A7 (non-noteworthy person). Likely hoax as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxery poaxery. Apparently an inventor of a belief system based on worship of the color red. None of this exists on google. Deprodded. Weregerbil 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close without prejudice against relisting. This was the work of a banned user's sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete / procedural listing. See nomination below. My opinion is Neutral. Navou banter 17:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional pages included in this nomination
There's a number of Yu-gi-Oh articles that say nothing except a plot summary (something just a one sentence long summary), an info box, and sometimes a cast list (indiscriminate collection of information, what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. We don't need 98+ Yu-gi-Oh GX episode articles (only a matter of time before someone makes an article similar to this one for each Yu-gi-Oh GX episode, not hard to do either) if all they're going to contain only plot summaries and an indiscriminate dump of cast information.
And has an article that does have commentary and real life context. With information which can be verified and sourced (although it currently is not). However, there is no evidence that the 120 other Yu-gi-Oh GX articles will ever reach this stage.
A scene-by-scene synopsis is something to be avoided as per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes
There's nothing wrong with episode articles if they're good and well developed, but that isn't the case here. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes says:
—The preceding unsigned nomination was made by Goldendoggy (talk • contribs).
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Business person with no credible claim per WP:BIO. There are 2 sources in the article and both are trivial mentions in an industry magazine's "Forty under forty" list as well as being named a "David Rockefeller Fellow". My opinion is that this article should be Deleted.--Isotope23 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
abstain After a conversation with the author of the page on the talk page of a deleted article I'm thinking the author is the subject in violation of WP:Auto. I don't want the author to continue feeling like I am personally attacking them hence my abstain vote. --Hansonc 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WordPress is notable, but is it's founder? Misterdiscreet 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eskadus very likely is Owen Byrne Misterdiscreet 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already speedily deleted twice, once each for WP:CSD A7 and G11. Either could apply. Brought to AfD so that G4 can be added to the list. Band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and certainly doesn't meet WP:N. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete after merging. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant POV Fork, brazen attack page, unencyclopedic and seemingly indescriminate collection of information. Due to the nature of this article and its title, however much it is revised, it cannot to be brought under numerous Wikipedia policies especially WP:NPOV. snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 March 2005, STF members allegedly threatened Anura Kirithi Rajah, an organizer for an employees union at a textile factory. The president of the union also received a death threat.
On October 9, 2002, eight ethnic Tamils were shot and killed by the STF during a pro-Tamil demonstration outside the STF's camp in Kanjirankuda[26]
On March 23, 2005, STF members allegedly threatened Anura Kirithi Rajah, an organizer for an employees union at a textile factory. The president of the union also received a death threat.[27]
On January 5, 2007, STF personnel and members of the Sri Lankan police raided the regional headquarters of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO) in Trincomalee and Vavuniya. The organization's Colombo office was raided, without a warrant, by police the next day.[28]
The whole Extrajudicial killings" section ,as you have correctly pointed out must go to a place in the dustbin..We can keep the disappearance part,as it ,true or not, directly accusing the STF ..And it should be under a category, like "criticism" just as the IDF article..IF raiding the TRO is a crime, then raiding every single Al-Qaeda cell is a crime..TRO is a proven pro-LTTE organization and regular raids should be carried out in order to safe guard the innocent people of SriLanka..SL have certain rules such as emergency laws, to combat terrorism and using them cant be categorize as "Abuses"..If you read the points i made earlier, this article could create havoc here..The whole wikipedia may go crazy if maniacs start making "Abuses" articles ,insulting every single institution in the world !! If someone from the NHK sexually harass a lady ,can we create an article name "Suxual abuses by NHK employees" ??.Common sense says we Cant..But this article gives us the impressions, WE CAN..thanks--Iwazaki 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. It is not possible to discern any consensus to do anything from this AFD, especially given the posting of the AFD on the noticeboard below. --Coredesat 00:19, 5 February 2007 (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 is, first and foremost, Original Research. It compiles a list of harsh words or negative actions taken towards Persians, the nation of Persia before it became Iran, and the Iranian government and defines them as "anti-Iranianism." There is no question that racial prejudice against Persians or other Iranians exists, and it deserves an article. The problem is that this article lumps several different topics (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world) and lumps them under the heading "anti-Iranianism." The term "anti-Iranianism" is a neologism. If you exclude wikipedia forks and websites referencing wikipedia there are only 365 google hits on the phrase "anti-Iranianism" of which only 150 are unique. [24] Anti-Persianism only gets about 200 ghits without wikipedia [25], and "anti-Persian sentiment" only about 40 [26]. Only six books in the Google books database contain the words "anti-Iranianism" [27] and only two scholarly articles use the term. [28]. By comparison, a well-established concept such as anti-semitism gets over 2 million google results. Anti-Japanese sentiment gets 55,000 google hits and 650 google book hits. [29]Furthermore, the article itself is highly POV. The section on the united states, for example, defines diplomatic actions such as denying visas as anti-Iranianism without any kind of sourcing to suggest that they are. (Not to mention the fact that the content is almost exactly duplicated at United States-Iran relations. It is also highly-POV to lump actions taken against a government together with racism towards an ethnic group (Persians), but this article makes absolutely no distinction between the two. I recently removed a photograph of a US Army poster with the words "IRAN... you're next" and a picture of Uncle Sam holding a wrench from the article. Although presented as an official US Army poster, the image was, of course, ripped off from a WW2 James Montgomery Flagg poster which originally referred to Japan. This kind of flagrant POV violation is rampant in this article. GabrielF 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Patchouli 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"GabrielF" if you don't have any other thing to do, please take a look at this Animal rights and antisemitism(?!)
I will bookmark this AfD for future refrences; take care --Pejman47 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1940s, Talfah wrote the ten page pamphlet Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies. In 1981, following the start of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi government publishing house Dar al-Hurriyya (House of Liberty) republished it, and the Iraqi Ministry of Education distributed it as part of a textbook for school-boys. The work describes Jews as a "mixture of dirt and the leftovers of diverse people". [37]"--Pejman47 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept for several important reasons. I will start off by addressing the arguments already made on this page (i.e. by user GabrielF). The section on the U.S. must be improved, but it should definitely remain. This is because a great deal of Anti-Iranianism exist in the United States. It is common knowledge that this was the case in the late 70's and early 80's because of the Hostage Crisis. In fact, the United States has been involved in Anti-Iranianism is many other cases. The article covers this a bit superficially and with a bit of POV, but this can be improved. I disagree with GabrielF that countries that are against the Iranian government aren't necessarily against Iranians. This is a distinction without a difference. Although there are many dissidents who oppose the government of Iran, we cannot say that the Islamic Republic is not a representation of most Iranians. Imagine a country being Anti-Israel without being Anti-Semitic. I must further disagree with GabrielF when he says "The problem is that this article lumps several different topics (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world) and lumps them under the heading 'anti-Iranianism.'" An understanding of the divide between East and West is necessary to understand why Anti-Iranianism in the ancient world is directly related to Anti-Iranianism in the modern world. Greek and Roman literature has contribited to Anti-Iranian sentiment in the modern West. This is discussed in the book Persian Fire. Also, the reason that anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world are "lumped" into Anti-Iranianism is that they are all forms of it. Take the article on antisemitism for example, it discusses antisemitism in the ancient world and in the modern world. It "lumps" antisemitism by Arabs and by Americans under the title anti-semitism. This is the case with this article. Even though anti-semitism by Arabs and Americans are very different and for different reasons, they are still antisemitism and should be included in that article. As the sections on Anti-Iranianism by different countries grows, they will have their own articles. GabrielF concedes that Anti-Iranianism exist: "There is no question that racial prejudice against Persians or other Iranians exists, and it deserves an article." This article must be improved, not deleted. It is true that there are many problems with this article, but they should be addressed in its talk page. Furthermore, the article has greatly improved since the posting of this AfD, and many points have been addressed (i.e. referencing sources). GabrielF says that there are too few returns for the google search of Anti-Iranianism. But he does not elaborate why it is too few. I believe it is quite sufficient and only proves the point that this article should remain (i.e. scholarly books use the word Anti-Iranianism). The point has already been addressed that there are article on anti-ethnic and anti-national terms. This is significant because it shows precedent, a major theme in Wikipedia. In conclusion, there is no doubt that there should be an article on Anti-Iranianism, and this article is not only salvageable but quite sufficient as a starting point. Agha Nader 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Comment: I reviewed the article again and now I have the idea of Strongly and Strongly and ... Keep and this article should be protected from any other deletion proposals .
I assert that Anti-Iranianism isn't just a sentiment and isn't however you see the above evidence about the acts of US and Centeral Asian tribes include Mongols. The other similar items can be said about Arabs or some other tribes such as Peter The Great's statement about reaching to Persian gulf needed invading Iran so they needed to be anti-Iran. And nowadays Persian gulf renaming can be considered as another Anti-Persianism(=Anti-Iranianism) acts. --Soroush83 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a mullahcracy in Iran because Mohammad Mossadeq was supposedly removed from power by the CIA? I looked at the preamble of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran. According to it the "anticolonialist movement centered on the nationalization of the oil industry" in 1950s was "failure" because it wasn't Islamic[39]. I assure you that Mohammad Mossadeq would be totally against Islamic totalitarianism.
If Mossadeq=Iran, then anti-Mossadeq=anti-Iran. Therefore, Islamic Republic = Anti-Iran.--Patchouli 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as an A7 speedy, but this was contested by the article's creator, User:Gbsothere. --A Train take the 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article because I believe that it does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirement of notability.
Per the notability guideline: A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.5 Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all.
There are no sources that meet the above criteria that are presented on the page. The only "source" relates to the comment on Bacliff, Texas and not the subject. Further, I was able to find no independent published material that relates to the subject. The only material I found was self-published (blogs, personal pages, and podcasts). --IRelayer 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete, discounting the various WP:AADD opinions to the contrary. Note that [44] is indeed substantial coverage by a mainstream newspaper, so if more substantial coverage by a reliable source shows up, the article could probably be recreated. Sandstein 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied and then contested; I decided to give this the benefit of the doubt. I see no credible evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC and my opinion is that this should be Deleted.--Isotope23 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Italic text[reply]
Keep this page this woman is tellented web based singer who is developing her carear via the net and has every right to use a web based encylopidia to diarise her progress. Giles Ashton
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.For one thing, the article is entirely non-objective. I removed some superfluous fluff, but the whole article reads like a promotional piece. Nothing about the mass criticism his films have received, the questionable content such as using a real infant in one scene, or allegations of anti-semitism...nada. A lot of the information is unsourced as well.
I also don't think he's that notable, at least for an encyclopedia. No one outside the core horror community knows about his work, and a lot of the 'controversy' that his films have received usually stem from his own aggressive message board patrolling.
No categories and no links. He was actually listed on a list of notable horror film directors, but he is clearly not and I removed it. CyberGhostface 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article has been ammended with additional information. Disinformation has been repeatedly added to the article including the claim that the film was produced by Thrid Reich Productions when in fact it was produced by Fright Flix Productions. S_noone
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as a biography with no assertion of meeting WP:BIO, I see assertions, I just think they fall short of meeting the criteria. Submitting here for community review. If kept it needs a nearly complete rewrite...--Isotope23 19:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, personal vendetta of a user against another. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability questionable/possible author vanity/COI
The result was: Speedily deleted as patent nonsense and vanity. - Mike Rosoft 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
blatant bullshit. there's no such thing as very high programming language they might use syntax that is never used in other programming languages, such as direct English syntax. obviously a joke.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The P++ Man (talk • contribs) .
The result was keep. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, this article is not reliably sourced but rather relies on a bunch of fan websites. That by itself is enough to justify deletion. Additionally, I believe finding reliable sources for this is impossible, because:
Additionally, the parts of the article which one might find a source for if one looks hard enough do not belong in the article.
There was a previous AfD which kept this article but I seriously do not see how it is grounded in policy. Ashibaka (tock) 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some links which might prove enlightening when it comes to your assertion of a lack of reliable sources:
http://www.ohmyeris.com/4.html http://pages.videotron.com/drroots/DiscordianReferences.htm http://batlock666.blogspot.com/2006/11/scripture.html http://discordia.loveshade.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/5books.html http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=9743.0
Given that these are lists compiled by practicing Discordians and Discordian Cabals, I'm rather afraid that they count as "reliable sources". I do not understand why you might think that they are not, unless you chose to view them as "fan sites", an epithet which I am pretty sure they would object to vehemently. Drjon 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bahá'í Faith in fiction, etc. A google search gave 1,400,000 hits for Bahá'í, but 3,330,000 for Discordia. Binky The WonderSkull 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnoteworthy school, violation of WP:V, with no sources to prove notability. Google displays just 40 hits, some of them just lists of schools. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable porn star. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:BIO. Valrith 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed, a vandalism hotspot, and a non-notable, non-verifiable article The Rambling Man 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC) •[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. -Docg 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this page has recently been revised to remove the implications I have objected to (that it was a hereditary post) and otherwise rewritten to discuss the deputization of the Lord High Steward's functions. As discussed below, there is ample precedent for non-hereditary deputies; change my vote to Speedy Keep due to revisions in article. Choess 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is reason to believe that the existence of this office cannot be substantiated. Most of the references on the page refer to the right of the Lord High Steward of Ireland to appoint deputies. However, such deputyships, like appointments as deputy of the Earl Marshal, are not hereditary, as this office claims to be. The one exception, a reference to the Dublin Grant Book of 17 July 1442, appears to be a reference to the creation of the office of Lord High Steward itself. Furthermore, the office does not appear in any of the usual works of reference describing such dignities. Unless further evidence can be produced, I believe it should be deleted as unsubstantiated. Choess 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be much evidence that it actually exists, it does seem to smack of charlatans creating false titles, or at least, feigning a long-forgotten title.--Couter-revolutionary 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Avi 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This appears non-notable Avi 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one time only fest that didn't complete half its days seems non-notable. Google hits produces a few mentions of the event being shut down for rioting or near-rioting and little else. Also seems to have a biased POV.Improbcat 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, personal vendetta of a user against another. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability questionable/possible author vanity/COI
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable elementary school Reywas92TalkSigs 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because it is simply a copy of the above page because the author didn't know how to use redirects:
The result was merge into You Damn Kid!. I will redirect this article, whilst leavinh the edit history. Feel free to merge in any information from The Beevnicks to the new target article. Proto::► 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non notable webcomic. Beevnicks plus Dunne gets only 55 distinct Google hits[48], most of them links from his own websites (beevnicks, youdamnkid, dunnestuffe, myspace) or keenspot forums. No mentions in independent WP:RS sources indicating any notability. Being hosted on Keenspot is supposed to give notability, but if no one independent has deemed it important enough to comment on it, we can start to wonder if Keenspot hosting really is a good indicator of notability... Prod is contested, but no efforts were done to address the lack of WP:RS sources indicating notability. Fram 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
*Delete - above searches return nothing and only 55 google hits. Addhoc 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep -- I make it 449 distinct Google hits,[49] a number of which do seem to have substantive discussion. John M Baker 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable Improbcat 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating deletion discussion page for Michael_Rider because it appears to be nothing but a duplicate of a minor Actor's IMDB list of roles. Even had the year of birth wrong despite two links to information on the actor with the correct date listed.Improbcat 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a minor character in a television series broadcast only in the Philippines. No assertion of notability, unreferenced, violates WP:WAF and is completely in-universe in tone (aside from a lip-service blurb). Shrumster 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable student club. Hard to Google (many clubs with the same name No WP:RS for the Rumsfeld claim[52], no WP:RS sources for other claims to notability[53] (many results not for this club). Just an eating / drinking club, no good reasons for having an article here.Fram 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia with lack of sources to verify claims. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, non encyclopaedic, more dic def than article and main reference is urban dictionary RHB Talk - Edits 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Meets notability in WP:MUSIC guideline 9, in that they've performed for a notable work (Guitar Hero series), but with that as the sole criterion they're meeting, the WP:MUSIC page suggests a mention in the main article and a redirect. Deltopia 23:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but will rename. W.marsh 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same content as Category:Disney Channel actors Deb 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a bit funny, because it does fail WP:BIO, but the individual is an editor that I know, PDelahanty (talk · contribs). Of course, I have no clue to whether or not he has read the article, but I am sure he'll agree that it doesn't belong here--at least that is my take. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
*Delete, above searches don't yield any results that have relevance. Addhoc 10:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I myself have participated in this high school competition, but I find no evidence that it is really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Google shows only a few hundred hits for the competition, and this is only offered at the high-school level, just in New Jersey. Only a few hundred students a year take this test, which suggests this is not something of significance outside the local realm. Nishkid64 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result was Delete by Nihonjoe. Diez2 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally prodded as 'Not for things made up in school one day', but I thought it only fair to remove that, as I know that it is not the case. I thought it fair that the article was brought here, as it had already been Prodded, and I was not sure of the notability. No vote from me, for now. J Milburn 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college a cappella group. Successfully prod-ed then recreated, so bringing it here. Savidan 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article categorized for deletion, but the other Yale undergraduate a cappella vocal ensembles are not categorized for deletion? There needs to be consistency in treating the well-established collegiate vocal groups.
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, no sources/links Tom H 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable self-published author. All books are from lulu.com. A google search fails to bring forth any notability, the first hits are the lulu.com page and this article. The article author, Artnut586, only created this page and then never edited again. Possible conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "James Donaldson" + designer gets some results, but only a write-up from his college is reliably this James Donaldson. Article cites no sources to demonstrate notability. While this person may very well be as revolutionary as the article says, I'd say the burden of proof is on the creator. Natalie 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local roller hockey player. Djsasso 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's not..., original research... This is not encyclopaedic information and has been built up independently of external sources. The referenced sources do not provide a reference for the comparison of such software but rather that individual software has certain features. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent software. Thanks/wangi 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree KEEP!! At least for now... This is a fairly new technology and very little independent (self serving) information seems to be available right now. Wiki whatever has become a constant companion tool for all types of research for the past year. As this technology grows and gets more attention, then deletion at a later date may be considered if necessary.
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant article given Category:Swiss artists exists. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect. Just do that next time, afd takes a lot more time from everyone. - Bobet 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is redundant. The information included is not important enough to warrant its own encyclopedia page. Enough is said about this doll on the American Girl Dolls article. JabberwockyPie 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so. I think that the American Girls should each have thier own page, and I am working on that right now. I am doing them in the order that I purchased them, and I happened to purchase Kailey first. -mollybrown95
Article has been recreated to meet Wikipedia standards. Primary reasons for importance focused on A) credit for introduction of Science-Fiction to Asia, B)Co-Founder of Bubonicon C) Recipient to World Sci-Fi life time achievement award. FLJuJitsu 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination process, see note by Looper5920 below. — ERcheck (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ