The result was Speedy Delete per Author's Request (and below, of course). Cbrown1023 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This unmaintainable article about an unremarkable air cadet squadron contains no information, only an ephemeral list of current members, a cryptic list of "camps" (which appear to be programs of some sort), and an unexplained list of locations. WP:NOT#IINFO ➥the Epopt 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasdel `'mikka 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page created and edited by the subject with only text coming from a personal website CoolGuy 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mere nomination for an award is insufficiently notable. ➥the Epopt 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to awards section AfricanAmericanHistorian 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to pass notability guidelines for Internet Radio, as listed in Articles for Deletion precedents (WP:AFDP). Prod tag removed by anon. JRHorse 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Well done, Lyrl. DS 17:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally prod'ded by myself, de-prod'ed by author. I'm really not sure what this is supposed to be, but it read (and still reads) like the introduction to a seminar on the topic, and never really addresses what the title of the article is supposed to mean. While it has references, all the article does is ask a lot of questions. This is not an encyclopedia article. As it is now, I think it should be Deleted. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure if this hip-hop artist is notable. Google is inconclusive and he doesn't have an AllMusic page; I don't think "he is well known in the underground" is good enough. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. DS 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Apparently just a small shop in London. Horário nobre 01:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted prod template. Reason given was: Non-notable office building. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted prod. Reason given was: Non-notable association, no third party independant references given. Reason appears totally valid to me. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable comic. Prod removed by anon. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minister. Fails WP:BIO. References are to her own site or writings only; also concerned it might violate WP:VAIN or WP:AUTO. ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is on a non-notable slang term for a video game. Violates WP:NEO, Wikipedia is not a dictionary for slang terms. Darthgriz98 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Joe 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. Article was nominated for prod, but prod tag has been removed without explanation or editing of article Macmic77 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Pilotguy. --Wafulz 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced stub with no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Deltabeignet. MER-C 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on a non-notable band that has no released albums under record lables. Darthgriz98 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book advertisement (hint: the book title is "Next nature" and it was published in 2005) wrapped up in pseudo-scientific lingo and pretending to be a concept. According to Amazon, the sales rank of the book is "#1,519,462" - which is absolutely horrible. -- ChrisWakefield 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr. Perreault certainly appears to be an accomplished fetish photographer with a well known girlfriend. Those facts alone, however, do not sufficiently establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article borders on self-promotion. I am deleting the article as a failure of WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:V, as well as a direct and persistent conflict of interest per the arguments presented below. alphachimp 05:51, 12 January 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)) . |
Photographer whose main (perhaps only?) claim to notability is tastefully photographing his improbably curvacious girlfriend (who also has a WP article: Bianca Beauchamp) in latex or bikinis or whatever for magazines of the kinds that I suppose come sealed in cellophane (no evidence supplied) and websites. Mentions of and links to the latter abound. No independent verification is supplied (WP:V) for anything but the websites, there's no hint of notability per WP:BIO, and the article (the interests of whose contributors seem limited to Perreault and Beauchamp) has a whiff of promotion about it. Hoary 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY TO THE ABOVE: This profile is as valid as any other. The above statement is pure discrimination against the work that I do.
My credentials can be easily verified online. A simple search on Google with my name will show articles about my work (notably from eros-zine online) and more searches will show LOTS about model Bianca Beauchamp, who is internationally known. Evidence is supplied many times, on both profiles. Googling any of the two names will provide anyone with more than enough information on the validity of these profiles. Further more, a list of all publications I have done can be found here: http://www.martinperreault.com/magazines.html . Each editor can be contacted to verify my credentials. Yes, I do shoot my "curvacious girlfriend". An article about someone should not be deleted on the simple fact that a viewer dislikes the art produced by the artist(s). A forum full of people who know about my work can be found here: http://forum.biancabeauchamp.com . This profile is not about self promotion. Fans started this page and I help them fix it with correct details. The same aplpies for profile Bianca Beauchamp, to which I only started contributing lightly very recently, even though her profile has existed for over 2 years. My involvement to both profiles is only to make sure of the validity of the information posted. For example, images users have posted on these two profiles were deleted due to copyright infringement; but by posting the same pictures myself, and by adding the information that I shot them, it makes them legit. The simple fact that my username on Wikipedia is the same as my real name shows that I do not hide behind a false name, like others might do to self promote. My involvement is to make sure the information posted is accurate. I can be contacted on my website www.martinperreault.com or on model BiancaBeauchamp.com website. I invite anyone here to contact the editors of the following magazines to verify the above information: Bizarre Magazine (UK) www.bizarremag.com to which I shot their covers 5 times in 2 years; Skin Two Magazine (UK) www.skintwo.com to which I shot their cover 2 times and featured in them many times. Marquis Magazine (www.marquis.de) for which I shot their cover 2 times in two years, _ many features. Penthouse Australia for which I shot their cover feature last year. Playboy Enterprise (www.playboyse.com) for which I shot a feature in Playboy SE in 2006 with model Bianca Beauchamp (who appeared many times in Playboy SE and on their cover of the Lingerie Edition). I think this should be more than enough to prove the validity of this profile. Martin Perreault - www.martinperreault.com 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Rikapt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
—- Now what? Do you suspect I am Martin Perreault? No, I am not - but you will not believe me anyway... --Rikapt 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep, the condition being that proof is provided that Mr Perreault has contributed magazine covers. To my mind that would establish notability. Mallanox 03:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References, other than print: Interview on national TV Canada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKvK2mnBCqc | Interview on Life Channel, both with beauchamp and Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoPZTvJAAf4 | Interview on Bianca Beauchamp, part interview with Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H_CTZJUhhE | Interview with Beaucahmp, mention of Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44tzzLWURdg | note: not all tv interviews are available online. I understand the importance of being careful with inclusion of articles on Wikipedia being a project about archiving knowledge and information. I would like to clarify a few things: I am not posting under multiple usernames like some above have been implying. I know how "first time posters" make it look like that. These first time posters are people that follow Bianca Beauchamp's career on her website. I am very much present on these websites, being that I do all the photography there and more. So these people are very much aware of my work, and notability in the fetish scene worldwide. The article was started by one of them as a matter of fact, which also explains the reason why I came here myself to make minor modifications to the article because some details were wrong. I understand how this may look to many. Further more, as if this didn't look bad enough, one of our server is down at the moment due to a DOS ATTACK. So biancabeauchamp.com and martinperreault.com are have been down for 24 hours and as I write this, they still are down. Sure enough, some might see this as a sign that we are phony. Personally, I question the very odd timing as well for such an attack, but for other reasons. That said, I can certainly only state once more that this whole Wikipedia Article was done with good intention and is not a promo scheme. I understand there are ways and guidelines to follow at Wikipedia, and I am certain they were created to make sure Wikipedia remains a reliable source of information. Therefore, I leave it up to the Wikipedia contributors to make the final decision, and to look at the situation factually and not through eyes of suspicion. I would like to take this opportunity to publically thank the original contributor who started this article. I think you did a very good job and I am honored you thought important to contribute my name to the online encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. Martin Perreault - www.martinperreault.com 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (in italics) on the references supplied above:
Comment Here follows an exhaustive list of contributions to and features in books, magazines, and the like:
BOOKS: COVERS shot by Perreault, all fully credited inside:
It is a shame that, rather than being allowed to grow this article slowly and naturally, with care, I must instead dump a list of credentials in order to stop the article from being deleted.
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently notable. Was subjected to a prod after the article was created in July that was reversed with a minor degree of improvement at that time. Other than addition of maintenance tags and minor copyediting, no improvement since July. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly nominated for speedy deletion by an IP address, despite being removed. Arguments for deletion were "The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem. Just statements is self promotion and does not belong in wikipedia. It mentions that it has a branch in Harlem throughout the article.", CSD G11, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. My opinion is Weak keep. -Amarkov blahedits 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PSL has since initiated a New York City branch based in Harlem, and has opened offices in Chicago. ...
It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices. ...
he Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) also maintains branches and centers in Baltimore, MD; Chicago; Los Angeles, CA; New Paltz and New York City, NY; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA; and West Chester, PA. The PSL's New York City branch is based in Harlem. ...
Plus the only citation is themselves... This neeeds to be deleted. 68.161.73.206 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in addition for reason for deletion is... Wikipedia states in the What Wiki is not page
"Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."
This page fits that. 68.161.73.206 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not notable either. As the criteria states:
One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.
68.161.73.206 03:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SetofFive 12:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Advertisement: "It is published monthly and can be obtained from a variety of bookstores throughout the United States, as well as through PSL offices." Can this be any blatant? What does the article need to say? Call us at 1-900-555-5555 to get a copy of our mag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.242.153 (talk • contribs) at 00:27, 8 January 2007
The result was Speedy Delete (A7).--Húsönd 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong spelling and grammar on title. Maybe a test page from a new user, suggest delete and notification on user's talk page to try again. Recurring dreams 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:V --Адам12901 Talk 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod tag removed, so bringing for consideration here. Similar to the now-deleted Winston Olde English Bulldogge and the still under consideration Olde English Bulldogge and British Bulldogge, this is a rather obscure sub-breed of the bulldog that appears to be produced by a single breeder. I get about 560 Google hits for Wilkinson Bulldog, many of them similar to one another and likely submitted to various pages; the article itself states that the breed "appears to be gaining popularity," and is not recognized by a major kennel club. The editor who removed the PROD tag added a link to the Animal Research Foundation as an indication of notability. I frankly can't see this being a notable breed, and feel the article should be deleted (or possibly merged gently into the bulldog article) unless someone else comes up with some solid sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get on with Deleting Wilkinson Bulldog instead of discussing WP's censorship policies? Cowbonsai 00:42, 9 January 2007
This usually lasts 5 days. —Centrx→talk • 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:SOFTWARE. Contested prod. MER-C 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. Alexa ~ 1m: [11]. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merely a list of dictdefs. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwikiied contested prod. MER-C 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Mets501 (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:V Адам12901 Talk 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no claims to notability that would satisfy any of the 3 points in WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
OK, I'll bite. What are the grounds for deletion for this one? HalJor 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Eluchil404 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 03:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V (ref is urban dictionary and an online catalog that sells "cum rags"), possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - It is clear there will not be a consensus for deletion, so no need for this to continue. VegaDark 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO, survived an AfD 1.5 years ago and has not improved. CyberAnth 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.
The result was keep. John254 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.
The result was Speedy Keep. The response has been unanimous. I don't think this has any chance of reaching any consensus besides keep -- Samuel Wantman 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and are held to a higher standard.
He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one:
CyberAnth 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was regular keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term appears notable:
Use seems wider than a mere neologism and has a culturally irony given the use of a honourific. It is not presently a dicdef and can in any event be expanded. Quality of article is no reason for deletion. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.
The result was Keep as valid diasambiguation page. Eluchil404 12:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. Atom 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Looking at it again, the page is not a disambig page. I have removed the disambig tag. This page is nothing but a dicdef with trivia. -- Donald Albury 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, never mind, its a disambig. At least now it's lost that leering tone. -- Donald Albury 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting. Atom 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO, has not improved since last AfD. CyberAnth 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete and salting per WP:CSD#G4, substantially identical recreation of content deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space docking (sex act). Sandstein 19:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references except to urban dictionary and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per MER-C. --Dennisthe2 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Jinian 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. I've been involved with sailboats for 20 or so years and never heard of this. I know "I've never heard of it" is a pretty weak argument for non-notability, so I did a google search. The top four hits are 1) this article, 2) the SailAmerica website (i.e. the people who invented it), 3) a wikipedia mirror, and 4) a yacht broker who sells a brand of boat on the list. It's not until you get down to the 5th entry that you get an independent source, and that's an article in a trade magazine which only mentions it in passing. In short, it fails WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "I've never heard of it", and a quick Google search shouldn't serve as criteria for deletion. I know that the nominator withdrew his nomination, and struck out his statement, but I'm just writing this in for future reference. RiseRobotRise 06:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep. Yes there were SPAs but also enough keeps from established users to muddy the consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Retroactive objection to PROD. ➥the Epopt 04:34, 6 January 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)) . |
Rhizomes, Place and the Electrate Situation? [37].
2004 John Craig Freeman, chapter 20 "Imaging Florida: A Model Interdisciplinary Collaboration by the Florida Research Ensemble", Edited by James Inman, Electronic Collaboration in the Humanities: Issues and Options. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mahwah, New Jersey.
July 2003 Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, William Tilson and John Craig Freeman, "Image Emergency: A Psychogeography of Miami," Prague Literary Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 17.
2003 Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, William Tilson and John Craig Freeman, "Image Emergency: A Psychogeography of Miami," Leonardo, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 197 - 198.
2002 Florida Research Ensemble: Gregory Ulmer, William Tilson, John Craig Freeman, Barbara Jo Revelle, and Will Pappenheimer, "Miami Miatre; mapping the virtual city (a preview)," Journal of Visual Culture, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 341 - 357.
1999 Florida Research Ensemble: Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, Gordon Bleach and John Craig Freeman, "Imaging Florida: A Research Initiative conducted by the Florida Research Ensemble", Exposure, Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 35 - 43.
g —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.71.192 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
contribs) 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Keep. Nom. withdrawn. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to pass the professor test. Less than 1,000 Ghits, mostly relating to his one published book. I am also nominating the page for his book:
Lyrl Talk C 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep band and album article, No consensus for the band member article. Further discussion is encouraged about merging the member's article but AFD is not the place unless deletion is an option. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE No assertion of notability. I am also nominating the following related pages:
--Sigma 7 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I´m a member of the Burning Point band and writing pure fact
-jj- 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an essay, and would take a fair bit of work to bring it up to standards. I'm not sure, but it seems a likely copyvio, from the tone. Yuser31415 04:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn-people Mayumashu 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject clearly fails WP:PROF; nn professor. Eusebeus 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to bass drum. Opabinia regalis 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is NOT a how-to guide, even to obscure drumming techniques. ➥the Epopt 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT. Jinian 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a POV fork from Glen Rose Formation. The article makes crazy claims from non-scientists who are pushing a creationist agenda. I have cleaned up and sourced the claims at the proper article so there is no need for this one. PatriotBible 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A made up name from want-to be scientist Carl Baugh who has no scientific education and states dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth while claiming it is only 6000 years old. This has no place of wikipedia. Someone whose pseudoscience is rejected even by creationists should not have an article on every made up term he wishes people to repeat. PatriotBible 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished series (first book due out in March). non-notable at this time. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, extremely likely this was created by the author himself in a conflict of interest, as he has linked this article to his freewebs site. Also nominating the author's article itself, for the same reasons
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly what the title suggests; it's about intersection traffic cameras, which are found in pretty much every North American city with more than a couple thousand people. I consider myself an inclusionist, but this is far beyond "roadcruft", and may have been intended as a bad joke. Read it if you don't believe me. — CharlotteWebb 06:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has not passed WP:V --Адам12901 Talk 06:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:N. --Адам12901 Talk 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into some historical data on the company and other stuff, and should have something soon. I've been a little busy. thanks Squidge37 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB, asserts no claim to notability and has no reliable sources. BJTalk 06:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list of exactly one person. Should be merged into HIV Trial in Libya. If there are a few notable victims they can be discussed in the main article, but a list of 426+ non-notable people is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a memorial. GabrielF 07:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
possibly a hoax. unverifed since august. a search of cairo in microsoft site returns nothing about this. [51] KaiFei 08:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, nonsensical and positively asserts lack of notability. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, this is a "small movement" appearing in blogs. Google search for Geovictwardianism -wikipedia turns up about five uses (plus some unacknowledged Wikipedia mirrors). Let's wait until it's a larger movement appearing in reliable sources. FreplySpang 09:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conception and organization of this poorly sourced article constitutes original research. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a pulpit. This article should be deleted. Proabivouac 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. It looks like an original research. We cannot use primary sources (of Hadith) to justify something without using some secondary sources. The first paragraph of the article is the base of the article and it looks like pure original research without any references. --- ALM 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Because on the sources provided by Striver. However, I will still prefer if we have one detailed article instead of so many small ones and we do NOT create articles by cherry picking some hadith. I will still not vote for keep. --- ALM 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry for being late, i had other issues to take care of. Thanks Coelacan for holding the stance, so that i wouldn't need to face the usualy bach of "delete" before starting.
I hope this will suffice to show that the concept is prominent in Shi'a literature and argumentation. --Striver - talk 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nominationSefringle 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW. 1ne 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating for deletion: Person (American English)
In the original article Person, now redirected to Person (American English),User:Lucy-marie globally altered every occurence of the word 'persons' to 'people' and every occurence of 'personhood' to 'being a people', making nonsense of a sensible article. Her grounds for doing this were: "(persosns is an icorrect grammar pluralisation it is people or a person or a person's rights and carried out a clean up)". I pointed out the error, and reverted. Lucy-marie refused to accept she was wrong and reverted. On the discussion page (now at Talk:Person (American English)) I started a Request for Comment. The only supporter of Lucy-marie has been a friend of hers. One contributor suggested, jokingly, that two separate pages be made, one for American English and one for British English. Lucy-marie has now unilaterally declared the Request for Comment process closed and has totally unnecessarily created these two pages, blanked the original Person page and turned it into a Redirect. At the top of the Discussion page for each article, she has written "This page was created entirley to resolve a dispute over persons or poeple". The dispute has not been resolved. I am proposing the deletion of these two pages and the restoration of Person until the Request for Comment discusssion is properly concluded. Emeraude 10:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"person noun (persons or in sense 1 also people) 1 an individual human being. 2 the body, often including clothes • A knife was found hidden on his person. 3 grammar each of the three classes into which pronouns and verb forms fall, first person denoting the speaker (or the speaker and others, eg I and we), second person the person addressed (with or without others, eg you) and third person the person(s) or thing(s) spoken of (eg she, he, it or they). 4 (Person) Christianity any of the three forms or manifestations of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that together form the Trinity (sense 2). 5 in compounds used instead of -man, -woman, etc, to denote a specified activity or office, avoiding illegal or unnecessary discrimination on grounds of sex, eg in job advertisements • chairperson • spokesperson. Compare chairman, chairwoman, etc. be no respecter of persons to make no allowances for rank or status. in person 1 actually present oneself • was there in person. 2 doing something oneself, not asking or allowing others to do it for one."
This is a definition from the online dictionary of the word people.
1.persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2.
persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3.
human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4.
the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.
5.
the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.
6.
the ordinary persons, as distinguished from those who have wealth, rank, influence, etc.: a man of the people.
7.
the subjects, followers, or subordinates of a ruler, leader, employer, etc.: the king and his people.
8.
the body of enfranchised citizens of a state: representatives chosen by the people.
9.
a person's family or relatives: My grandmother's people came from Iowa.
10.
(used in the possessive in Communist or left-wing countries to indicate that an institution operates under the control of or for the benefit of the people, esp. under Communist leadership): people's republic; people's army.
11.
animals of a specified kind: the monkey people of the forest.
–verb (used with object)
12.
to furnish with people; populate
13.
to supply or stock as if with people: a meadow peopled with flowers.
So according to the above definition it can be used to represent a collective and according to the first defintion it can be used to represnt individuals so therefore it can be used to reprersnt both.--Lucy-marie 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unremarkable roundabout. Contested prod. MER-C 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is trivial non-encylopedic detail of the sort which is called cruft. It is so non notable it can't be expressed. 3rd party external sources have never described. A merge and redirect makes no sense since this cruft would ruin the main article Sealab 2021. DeleteObina 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7/WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising/directory entry. Emeraude 11:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: article was restored from being speedy deleted twice after discussion with the author User:Carmaz, to be put through the regular AfD process. See User talk:Chris 73#Identity Intelligence and User talk:Carmaz)
Seems to be a non-notable topic, with about 500 google hits, the first one being the link to the book website by Carmaz. The text is an excerpt from the book, of which Carmaz claims copyright (which i believe). Chris 73 | Talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author has added a few refs on my talk site for your info:
Chris 73 | Talk 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, stated reason for deletion (hoax) has been conclusively demonstrated as not applying. Non-admin closure not exactly per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MAC-11 is not a real weapon manufactured by the Military Armament Corporation. Momo Hemo 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Tubezone 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but a reference table and external links. Onorem 12:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly 16:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a duplicate of Math circle.
The result was speedy keep. This is articles for deletion, please go to WP:RFD for redirects. Thanks. MER-C 13:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Term doesn't appear on redirect page. Doesn't appear in any of the sources used on that page. No idea what it's supposed to stand for. Onorem 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and cleanup. Agent 86 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be made up of mostly nonsense. CJ 12:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears as if the entry (as it is now) is written in somewhat broken english. That is probably the reason for it sounding a bit nonsensical. JN322 14:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Onorem 12:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matthew. — Swpb talk contribs 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Extremely important mechanism that affects billions of dollars on Nasdaq daily. --Oakshade 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Herostratus 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable English non-league football club, several levels below the accepted criteria of Level 10 or above. fchd 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable series of matches that began on Smackdown this week and will end on Smackdown next week. This fails the notability policy, amounts to fancruft and random information, and thus far WP:PW has unanimously decided that this page doesn't deserve to exist. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but nothing applies to it. -- The Hybrid 13:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cleanup of stubs of non-notable masts per AfD precedent (per WP:NN, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO). There are an excessive number of stub articles in this category, see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for further rationale
The result was Delete. If someone wants the content in order to pursue this, let me know and I'll put it in their user space. Otherwise, just being a positive influence is not sufficient to establish notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A long-serving and worthy police officer. However, he is only even slightly notable in a local context and holds a relatively junior rank (inspector is approximately equivalent to lieutenant in police forces in the United States and elsewhere and every force has at least dozens of them). He has been awarded the QPM, but this is not a particularly unusual decoration for a long-serving officer and we would not expect entries for every police officer who had been awarded it for meritorious service (although those who were awarded it in the past for bravery may be more notable). As for his international contributions, many British police officers make visits to foreign forces - they don't make him stand out in any great way. Neither do a few appearances on television current affairs programmes to talk about local issues. All in all, an officer who is probably fairly prominent in his local community, but is not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article (meaning no disrespect to the man whatsoever). Necrothesp 13:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Not exactly a quorum, but nobody spoke up for it. We can't relist everything. Herostratus 07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources. Seems to fail WP:WEB as currently written. Will probably be a good candidate for an article once more sources are available. --Onorem 13:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. 7-2 in favor of deletion and no strong Keep arguments or 3rd-party evidence of notability provided. Herostratus 07:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki, arguments like "keep and improve". We kept it, it hasn't improved. The article has no external sources (external link to itself and a spam link for a creationist wiki), no evidence of being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources, no evidence of meeting the criteria of WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Wiki. No evidence that it's a significant wiki, though. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB either. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page has existed for two and a half years, tagged as a stub soon after creation, with no development. Original author has made no contributions since July 2004, so seems to be totally abandoned. Probably capable of no more than a dicdef in any case. Emeraude 14:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete by Merging to Cheating (video games). Cbrown1023 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article seems to serve mainly as a locus for lame edit wars over links to editors' own game hacking sites. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article about a Wiki specific to a pretty small professional grouping. No evidence that it meets WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sole source is a brief mention (probably based on a press release) asying how this project is out tto beat GameFAQs. Hasn't happened yet, as far as I can tell, and the article itself is a borderline A7 speedy. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Jinian 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article itself indicates that this project very likely won't get made. Otto4711 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an advertisement for the F-14 combined with a conspiracy theory, and it utterly fails WP:POV. I have no particular investment in the Tomcat-vs-Super Hornet controversy at all, but the article does not fairly present it in any sense of the word. Improve at dead bottom minimum, but deletion may well be better. Iceberg3k 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judgment? This seems to be a pretty straightforward case here, it's POV, badly formatted and uncited. Iceberg3k 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. This article is actually about an underpass! Also, the title makes no sense. Jvhertum 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a professional wrestler, I'm afraid the young lady has not yet acheived sufficient note to pass WP:BIO. Xoloz 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web site with tall claims but only 15 items listed Skapur 03:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed so I bring it here. This whole article is devoid of context. It is a mess. It is also filled with personal commentary and original research. IrishGuy talk 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete but clean-up the article to adhere to WP:NPOV and use independent sources.
Delete - this article provides no references that establish notability with respect to the WP:CORP criteria for companies and corporations or criteria for products and services. Its prose is promotional in nature and the article requires a complete rewrite to insure neutrality. The only significant contributor is a single purpose account, Techie guru (talk · contribs). This editor's attempts to link the article to other articles have been mostly reverted as spamming. The editor removed an ((ad)) notice with no attempt to remedy or discuss the article's obvious problems. The article was previously deleted with the notation "advert". It was recreated the next day and one edit summary stated: For some reason this page was deleted. I will watch it going forward as I am not sure what the issue was. This article is arguably speediable, but the contribution history of the editor suggests a full discussion would be most helpful in order to determine consensus. ✤ JonHarder talk 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a final note on the spamming, it is also fair to note that the reverts were done by one specific person, not a group of different people. It’s also important to note that the person that was reverting was also in heated debates with other members for being the self appointed final word on a few articles. I encourage everyone to read up on that and you will see this is the case. Inadvertently because of that, i have been labeled a spammer by that person.Techie guru 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but should probably be transwiki'd if it can't be expanded beyond the current dictionary definition. W.marsh 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sory, delete. Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary of all possible foreign slang. Unlike, say, gringo, the term "katsap" is absent in English language. `'mikka 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was db-author apparently. If anyone wants the content let me know and I'll make it available to you. W.marsh 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT who wants to babysit this unreferenced list? PopPop PopMusic 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Eluchil404 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nomination - an anon added the afd tag, but most likely stopped part way through because he/she was incapable of creating this page. I believe Bilal is notable enough for inclusion, seeing as he has been featured in a several news stories in both India and Pakistan; therefore, my opinion is that the article should be kept. But I'll complete the afd for him/her anyways. Picaroon 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questionably notable social networking site seems to fail WP:WEB. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (Note: I am NOT an admin. My closing action is authorized by this policy section) Bwithh 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an autobiography. Is the guy notable? -- RHaworth 18:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well - Criteria apparently satisfied: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."
"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1
"Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LWHero (talk • contribs) author of the article
Dear god : I thought it would be "signed" automatically. Terribly sorry. Hardly anonymous though, since you could easily trace it. And yes, I am the author and subject - nothing to hide - several people asked why I wasn't in the English version of Wikipedia when I was in the French (and no I didn't instigate the French article) so I wrote something. Those in the relevant fields are obviously able to change any false information, to add critical reviews or views, etc. What on earth is the problem? Do you dispute that I fulfill one or more of the criteria for "notable"? On what grounds? LWHero 21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Mets501 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an autobiography. Is she notable? -- RHaworth 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. GRBerry 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable lawyer. Her only claim to notability is that she serves on the board of directors of the NRA. Google gives about 352 results for her, most of which relate to seminars she has spoken at for NRA events, but nothing that establishes notability. Metros232 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as repost, Carshalton Village F.C. is even salted. Punkmorten 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Reason given was A7. No stance. Cbrown1023 19:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki'd already. This is an article about a one-liner. I checked the refs, they are actually more or less generic references to U-Haul and would apply equally to anyone with a bad relationship history. I didn't see the exact phrase "u-haul lesbian" in them, although maybe I miseed it. This looks like a distillation of primary sources and a one-line gag combined to make what looks like an article but actually isn't. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (or merge and redirect, if local editors prefer). Opabinia regalis 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Page restored and added to AfD after discussion with author): Persons claim to fame is being the son of a famous US General. He became Lt. Col., chased some Viet Cong in Vietnam, and got killed in the resulting ambush together with his unit. After his death he had some media coverage due to his famous father. There are two books and one upcoming movie about the battle, and something like 300 google hits for "Terry de la Mesa Allen, Jr." or "Terry Allen, Jr.". In my opinion borderline notability at best, but as always i am willing to be convinced otherwise Chris 73 | Talk 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This book is also being made into a movie starring Tom Hanks as described here:
He is also the subject of another work called "The War at Home" which discusses the effect of his death (the son of a World War II hero) on the American perception of the Vietnam war
He was one of the main subjects of a PBS episode of the American Experience.
--Wowaconia 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I see no evidence from WP:RS that this online-based magazine meets WP:WEB. It's Alexa rank is 965,383; this might not be the best indicator, but as the site was officially launched a few months ago, it might be an accurate indicator of at least its short-term lack of notability. Also, while there are a few self-published print issues, I feel that WP:WEB is more apropos, as this bills itself as online content. Also, it is important to note that the "publisher" Hertzman Media Group is owned/operated by the same two individuals who have created this magazine (its only publication, according to its website), and shows no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. I should point out that in my research I've found other magazines of the same title, such as a skin-mag from the 1960s and an Indian magazine of the same name, so the Google test is difficult to apply. This is neither of those, and attempts to find references to it outside of blogs, etc., was fruitless. This may also be a WP:COI issue, as User:Yanks5157, the creator of this article, has no edits outside of this page, and User:Foxycat has added multiple external links to subpages of the webzine's site in multiple articles (now reverted). --Kinu t/c 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a non-notable neologism. alphachimp 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term is a neologism. The page links to a webpage about a film "Lolito", with very doubtful credentials -- the webpage contains a short but enthusiastic review, written in Dec 2005, of a 2006 movie. See also User:220.244.84.18's contribution to the talk page. Aleph-4 20:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was} redirect to British residential property market, which is in effect a redirect to Residential property market in the United Kingdom (as the first term is a redirect to the second). Proto::► 13:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion by another editor, and relisted here to generate further discussion. The article currently has plenty of problems. On the other hand, a related article on United States housing bubble is a former featured article candidate, and could serve as a model for this one. I think that it could be improved with some work, so I'm going to say keep. Pathlessdesert 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very hard to keep track of/verify and also seems to me to be a breeding ground for edit wars.DELETE. The Pink Panther 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (Moved by User:PullToOpen after this nom was mistakenly added to another subpage. PTO 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be much information on this person outside his own websites, no independent sources also blatant conflict of interest, Neutral at this point. Daniel J. Leivick 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Docg 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't an outright hoax, it is at least crystal ballery. The album that is claimed to be forthcoming isn't due until october of 2007. The problem is that the article claims the album will be titled M! where as the article author added info about this person in the P!nk article claiming the album would be titled TabOo. Created by Marciomathers so we are probably looking at a conflict of interest. Google has absolutely nothing on this person other than additions to Wikipedia and a blog entry from the same author. IrishGuy talk 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the "debut album" and the "debut single":
IrishGuy talk 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus decision at the prior AfD was overturned at deletion review. The disagreement about sources has not been resolved during the review, so it is now back here for more discussion. Please see both prior discussions before commenting or closing. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP and WP:V --Адам12901 Talk 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Troll (Internet). While the topic is notable as explained below, it is also too small to warrant an independent article. As a compromise, I am going to redirect Troll organization to Troll (Internet). (Non-admin closure.) Yuser31415 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Troll organisation: an organisation of trolls. And? No reliable sources, and you'll never guess which troll organisation keeps adding its link to the article. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a poorly written nomination. Guy, why would we want to guess which organization keeps adding its name? Why don't you spit it out! If it's irrelevant leave it out of the nomination. --Kevin Murray 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NonNotable. Fails WP:Bio and does NOT deserve an article
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A silly and nonnotable neologistic dicdef, according to the talk page apparently from a "personality test" ([85]) - hardly a reliable source. Contested speedy deletion candidate, unfortunately fits no CSD. Sandstein 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society, no ocnsensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society (2nd nomination). This looks like an organisation with external coverage, but on investigation it turns out that none of the cited sources is actually a story about ANUS at all - one of them mentions it in passing as being allegedly the source of something and none of the others even name it. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - brenneman 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Derivative of Secant Function does not seem to add any value to Wikipedia. The derivative of the secant function can be derived in one or two lines using the chain rule, the derivative of cos, and similar standard rules of calculus; it is pointless to derive it from the limit definition of differentiation (which requires much more work and is therefore only used to derive the most basic rules of differentiation).
Are we going to have an article on "Derivative of X" for all X using this pointlessly cumbersome machinery? Possible? Yes (given infinite time). Useful? No.
—Steven G. Johnson 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect, and the nominator has already done exactly that. This should have been speedy closed. — CharlotteWebb 11:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little/no important information, the information on the page is also included in the article Aston Martin DB9 The93owner 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. No such term "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" exists, except for probably some obscure, frustrated pseudo-historians and irredentist. Wikipedia should not be the means by which some, after coining all sorts of terms, make them popular. Avaring 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this page:Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is also inexistent for you, right? I therefore call up on you to restore the deleted entry and start a negotiation on its discussion page...--fz22 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Jinian 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Work of a WP:SPA, no edits since October when this was added. One source paper, the other source does not mention the term. Can't find any reliable sources on Google, very few hits and those I saw are unrelated. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a fairly non-notable paranormal investigation group in West Virginia. I had originally tagged it as ((db-group)) but the author, Wvghosthunters (talk · contribs) (an example of a conflict of interest) has contested this. As of right now, the only references for this article are the website of the group itself and it's page on Alexa, of which it has a ranking of 366,978. It's "claims to fame" is that it has worked with The Atlantic Paranormal Society on the Sci Fi Channel program Ghost Hunters and as part of the Travel Channel's Weird Travels program.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Article is overly-specific, and seems to serve no purpose at all other than to act as a list of streets in a single city named after people. I haven't seen any lists around WP as specific as this. If this article/list is allowed, it might lead to tons of equally-specific lists such as "list of streets in XXX city named after a person/place/birds/flowers/trees etc. Perhaps a version of the list could work as part of the Cebu City article as a "List of streets in Cebu City" or something not as specific. Shrumster 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 13:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Greek anarchist local organisation, which is unknown to most people, does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. The article violates WP:N. Mitsos 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Eluchil404 13:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Greek anarchist gang does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. In other words, it is not notable. Mitsos 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly an upcoming book from a non-notable author. No reliable sources and the book's existence is unverifiable. Google for "historian of za" gets no hits. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "screenwriter" who seems to be more famous (if marginally so) as a blogger. Previously speedy deleted and recreated pretty much the same way, with some clean-up by admin User:Kukini, which is why I am not simply re-tagging. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - brenneman 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web site, essentially a travel journal. The creator of the article also placed many links to this site into other articles (but stopped immediately when warned). I conclude that it is self-promotion. Delete gadfium 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete GRBerry 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a copyright violation? I'm not sure what warrants a copyvio, so I'll leave it for the public to decide. Either way, the article is very unfinished and may want a tag on it. Apparently Template:unfinished doesn't really exist in its own right Montchav 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook case of non-notable neologism. The "Prairie Muffin Manifesto" is hosted on a homeschooling mother's website, and "Note: If you have something you would like to suggest for the Prairie Muffin Manifesto, email carmon...". What fun! But not a reliable source. All other sources are blogs and quizzes ("Are you a Prairie Muffin?"). It looks like the article's author has worked very hard on this, and commentors at Talk:Prairie Muffins have raised doubts about verifiability, but the author couldn't come up with any further support. Time to move it off Wikipedia, back to the blogosphere. — coelacan talk — 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence the term is in widespread use and WP:NOR. If some good sources could be put forth, I'd change my vote, however. Tarinth 10:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]