The result was Speedy Delete: WP:CSD#G1. Page deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed prod. Unverified game with no substantial Google hits; likely a hoax. Nufy8 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. WaltonOne 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ministry. No reliable sources. Corvus cornix 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A defrag utility. All sources are either generic or listings. This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage, as far as the sources tell. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golden Bow Systems VoptXP
RATINGS: Interface: 8, General usability: 8, Feature set:10, Documentation: 8, OVERALL: 9
VoptXP is the fastest defragmenter of the lot, probably because it defragments when there is absolutely no other activity. Still, for most people it is more than adequate, and much, much faster than Disk Defragmenter. Its $40 price tag makes it a decent value when you consider that it also includes an array of diagnostics and maintenance utilities. With VoptXP, you can automatically remove cookies, Inter-net history files, and temporary files; test your memory usage; and even perform error checking.
Chaos Manor Users Choice Awards: "For about the twentieth year in a row the Chaos Manor Users Choice Award for disk defragmenter goes to Golden Bow's VOPT."
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11. — Caknuck 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability as outlined in WP:BIO. Googling fails to turn up anything notable about the albums either. Is also a thinly veiled WP:ADVERT for the new album (if there is any doubt, see that it is copied nearly word-for-word from an ad: [3]), not to mention it appearing to be self-promotion with flowery descriptions. —Mrand T-C 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Maxim(talk) 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio. Article was originally prodded. Keb25 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Which of you here who have voted delete is a fashion and modelling industry expert/person in South East Asia?Aricialam 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Bible study group. Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by Nawlin Wiki. Non-admin closure--JForget 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable slang, racist cruft, pov, etc etc etc. No good speedy criteria superβεεcat 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my humble opinion that this sort of listing is not necessary for Wikipedia to have, it might be enough to just have a link to the appropriate everything2.com page. The United Airlines article could talk a little bit about destinations that have been discontinued and why. Plinth molecular gathered 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE all three as non-notable, unreferenced neologisms. GTBacchus(talk) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this is non-notable slang. superβεεcat 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called "monument" is actually a seen in a Halo 3 videogame commercial (it is dedicated to "John 117" a.k.a. "Master Chief", a Halo character), apparently "created in 2067" and hosted at the "Museum of Humanity", according to Google. No evidence to its real status or location. Nehwyn 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Internet slang. Shyamal 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a dictionary, non-notable jargon, no appropriate speedy category (nonsense?) superβεεcat 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy advertisement. Link to an Alexa graph is not acceptable claim of notability. ZimZalaBim talk 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus/keep. There was an initial surge in deletes, however if you look at the article history, there was a major overhaul during the course of this AfD. It seems like this AfD prompted editors to try to improve this article and address the nominators concerns. While perhaps still having issues, many following commentors felts the new, improved version was worth keeping. -Andrew c [talk] 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creationist POV fork of modern evolutionary synthesis. Deleted once and redirected to modern evolutionary synthesis for 3.5 years, recreated today by an editor refusing to recognize WP:NPOV, particularly its WP:UNDUE clause. Odd nature 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:--Ryoung122 09:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe certain ideas about the mechanisms of evolution that were developed from Charles Darwin's original theory of natural selection. Its usage is mainly historical, since modern evolutionary theory includes many ideas, notably Mendellian genetics and genetic drift, which are not found in Darwin's work.
Although it's possible this was modified from when you read it, these two sentences do NOT contradict each other. What it means is that, from an historical standpoint, there have been ebbs and flows in what evolutionary ideas were popular/most important in various eras. 'Neo-Darwinism' really means that the ideas of Darwin became popular again in the 1890's. Today's view is that Darwin was 'mostly right' but that the best view of evolution is a composite that combines Darwin's ideas with that of Mendel and further modifies them with modern understandings. Note that in the same way that modern Einsteinian physics altered but did not completely obliterate Newtonian physics, so Darwin's substantial contribution remains recognized. But that is not the point of the article. The point of the article is to explain the historiography of the term 'Neo-Darwinism.' Note that an idea need not be scientific to be 'notable'. Most evolutionists discard intelligent design as unscientific, but recognize that it has POLITICAL-SOCIAL importance.
The result was delete. GRBerry 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This model/wrestler is not notable, the article is poorly written there isn't sources confirming her career, and this article contains fragments and run-on sentences. Also there isn't enough information to make an article about her Art 281 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rough consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Jreferee t/c 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted in standard prod process but I was asked to put it here. So here we go... Supposed bordercase of WP:WEB Tone 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a really notable model, she came in second on Project Runway and that is all this page basically states. Tinkleheimer 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really noticeable. Article likely created by himself on French, English and German wikipedias. Deleted on the French wikipedia. Poppy 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, based on the actual policy arguments presented.--Kubigula (talk) 22:22, 26 September 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 page was speedily deleted twice as blatant advertising and has been recreated yet again. The initial version was again very spammy, but it has been cleaned up a tad by another user. I'd like to get some consensus on whether it should stay or not, though. GlassCobra 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. GRBerry 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable: no sources independent of the subject are listed. Rambutan (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Not notable. Shyamal 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author whose lone book, published in 2006, garners two ghits: this article and an Answers.com mirror. The product of several single purpose accounts. Victoriagirl 17:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
The result was merged to new article. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Qumran (fictional country)[edit]
Non-notable, could be merged into a List of fictional places in Yes, Minister along with St George's Island and Buranda. Rambutan (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merged Agree that there isn't enough to any of these to support individual articles. You seemed willing to agree with a merge, so I was bold and did so. Good enough? Horrorshowj 18:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|