The result was Speedy Deleted by Orangemike at 16:04, 2 May 2008. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not provide proof of what little notability is asserted. "notable buyouts" doesn't really cut it, and there is no support or qualification of this supposed notability. SGGH speak! 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. I suggest discussing a merger or redirection; the article is largely redundant with Jurriaen Aernoutsz. Sandstein (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no place named "Dutch Acadie" or "Dutch Acadia" and historians do not refer to such a place even retrospectively. Google hits [1] return seven hits, of which the only non-Wikipedia site that actually refers to the term "Dutch Acadia" is a personal website. books.google.com returns zero hits [2]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, the (deleted) article on the band claimed that they had sold "over 10 albums worldwide". NawlinWiki (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discography for minor band. Band's article has been speedied twice for lack of claims to notability. Fails WP:BAND. Bad title too ("discography" is not a proper noun). — Gwalla | Talk 23:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. Not doing a redirect at this time, as I agree this is a highly unlikely string of characters to put into search. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:MUSIC which clearly states: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis mine) This 4 disc set is a bootleg, but no sources are offered to show any independent coverage whatsoever and I was unable to locate any myself. There are plenty of Ghits but nothing that looks like it could meet WP:RS or show sufficient coverage to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines; there was nothing on Gnews. WP:MUSIC is clear that a bootleg, even by a major artist, is not notable without significant independent coverage and there is just no evidence of that here. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice. Though several people looked for sources, no independent reliable sources have been found. If they do turn up, there is no prejudice against recreation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not notable enough to qualify for an article in wikipedia. See WP:NN. The only way to show that this is notable would be to find reliable third party sources that talk about this game. I welcome someone to do so, because the only mentions I can find of this game are on a few unreliable lists on the web. Randomran (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. The contents were effectively merged into Yahoo! Sports, and the article was redirected. This seems to be a solution which most think is acceptable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Selective merge of material into the Yahoo! Sports article, per WP:BOLD. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for sales catalogs. Look at the article and you'll clearly see that is what it appears to be. It is a blatent advertisement. Whether or not you feel Yahoo Fantasy is notable, I think we have a deeper issue here. Page has been requested for work for quite sometime now and no one has been able to upgrade it to wiki standards. It is unencyclopedic. SEE: Yahoo! Fantasy Games Site, Also a bit of copying straight from Yahoo going on. Most of the article looks like just this webpage on Yahoo. At the very least page should be merged to Yahoo! Sports without section "Fantasy Games Offered". That's why I brought the article here. The only section in the article is a sales pitch. Thanks! GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't have read my reason that fast. Please read it, article needs to be fixed, otherwise it will keep coming here. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the lack of references and Google hits for a moment - what's the conspiracy here? A lion that looks like a reptile, OK, so what? This might even be a hoax. Biruitorul (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not link or cite any references. It was marked as such in December 2006 and nobody had a look at it since 2006. MBest-son (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable links to support need of this persons bio on Wikipedia. Should be removed MBest-son (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all as articles about fictional spacecraft covered entirely from an in-universe perspective and with no sources, let alone to third party coverage. Feel free to recreate as articles about real-world ship classes. Sandstein (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding after AfD has begun; please strike out if you have a bona fide objection to its inclusion here -- its content is comparable to the articles listed above. --EEMIV (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of these articles lack citations to reliable sources or assert -- let alone attempt to establish -- real-world notability. Also suffer from entirely in-universe-ismnessitude. See here and here for precedent for similar articles/discussion from another franchise. --EEMIV (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), notability has been confirmed. Namaste! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
Hardly an entry and does not provide much of information that makes him notable. MBest-son (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are a couple more reliable sources. Along with what's in the article I think we have enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:28 2008 May 7 (UTC)
No references or reliable sources found. It appears that there is no notability for this particular person. MBest-son (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was mark for general notability in February 2008 and hardly any links provided. MBest-son (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Waggers (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that are presented do not appear to be anything but self published works. Hard to imagine that he should be considered notable. MBest-son (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person is hardly notable and should not be on the wikipedia. No links whatsoever to any sources. MBest-son (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was marked for general notability. Does not appear to be notable, most of the items are published by himself. Why is he on Wikipedia? MBest-son (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to see why this person should have an entry in Wikipedia. No links to sources and whatever there is seems to be published by him, MBest-son (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources for this video game are missing; it fails WP:N. Tagged with ((notability)) since July 07. Note: the article survived a mass nomination in May 07; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD). B. Wolterding (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per well-reasoned argument and no opposition to it. Non-admin closure. Please leave me a message if you wish to review this decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a bio article by some followers, but no sources to verify. MBest-son (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This personal bio is not supported by links to verifiable sources. MBest-son (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that the subject is notable. WilliamH (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to establish notability, no reliable or good links given MBest-son (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Watched BBC video of Uddhava, the IRA man who became a Hare Krsna devotee. He looked as handsome as an actor. His wife was growing older, but she’s a real person. They showed an intimate moment with her as she applied tilaka and looking radiant said, “I’m sure if I aborted a child in my womb I would become a fetus in my next life to be aborted by someone else.” Praghosa said a Unionist would become a Republican next life" - Satsvarupa dasa Goswami (1998). Every day, just write. Port Royal, Pa: GN Press. ISBN 0-911233-29-6. December 3, 1996.
Praghosa explained that to the many BBC TV viewers in the interview I saw on tape. He spoke with his hands, trying to illustrate his point. “Reincarnation,” he says, “it’s simply this: the soul is eternal, the body is temporary. When the body dies, the soul has to get a new body. That’s all.”- Satsvarupa dasa Goswami (1998). Every day, just write. Port Royal, Pa: GN Press. ISBN 0-911233-29-6. December 5, 1996.
They bought some Vietnamese pigs for their farm in Wicklow. The female llamas are nervous, but the male likes people. Devotees tend to their services. Praghosa is struggling to rent a restaurant in Dublin, but another guy may out-bid him. Each devotee’s got his world. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami (1998). Every day, just write. Port Royal, Pa: GN Press. ISBN 0-911233-29-6. - December 5, 1996.
On the way to the island, Praghosa joined us and told me about the GBC meetings he attended in Mayapur. A seven-man group was elected to carry out most of the decisions for the GBC because the bigger group is so unwieldy. One man particularly has increased powers. This news ran through my mind as I was building the yajna fire and chanting the mangala-carana prayers. But why should I be concerned over what the GBC decided? Praghosa said most GBC men don’t want to hassle with all the smaller decisions. -ditto- - March 13, 1998.
Oh boy, encouragement! It keeps us going. May I always encourage others. For now, I will encourage Dṛruka to care for his family as his devotional service, and encourage Praghosa to open a Govinda’s restaurant. “Encourage them more and more,”Srila Prabhupada wrote me when I was on the GBC. -ditto- - March 15, 1998.
This morning I walked down to the little bridge with the stream running under it and remembered previous years when I would stay at Praghosa’s house on a writing retreat, walk to this bridge, and dictate a “Prabhupada Appreciation” piece. Who would have dreamt in those days that I would live next door to him? -ditto- - May 15,1998 Wikidās ॐ 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both.--Kubigula (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hey, it's a monkey -- but does it meet WP notability standards? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability in this article doesn't seem apparent, but perhaps the WP editors who work in law can weigh in? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable on its own terms, but perhaps it can be merged with the Arsenic and Old Lace entry? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that notability is established under WP:MUSIC. Also, the article appears to have been created by the subject, as tagged by yours truly. InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nom: in light of the rewrite this is clearly keep-able. — iridescent 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom; I've declined a speedy-delete request on this as it's potentially salvageable, but at the moment it's a complete puff-piece. Bringing it over to see if anyone thinks it's clean-uppable. Procedural nom so I abstain. — iridescent 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Resolved (yeah, an unusual result, but neither keep, delete, redirect or merge are apt descriptions of the consensus built result you arrived at here :-) ). Fram (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Negolism - Wikipedia is not a dictionary Lemmey talk 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I know The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is not a reliable source (which is why I said I would try to provide more academic sources), I still recommend everyone reads pages 133 to 143 of this book to get a better handle on this topic: ccc-media.110mb.com/Docs/HolyBloodHolyGrail.pdf --Loremaster (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing all the comments, I have 1) turned Alph into a disambiguation page; 2) moved the content from the Alph article (which had been temporarily moved to the Alph River article) to the Alfeios River article. As I explained on the Talk:Alfeios River page, I am process of searching for reliable sources for that content. --Loremaster (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parishcruft, nothing indicating that this church is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Webcasting radio network with no apparent notability. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per absence of delete preferences, apparent failure to pursue WP:BEFORE and per the addition of references that satisfy WP:BIO (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a memorial for an executive that led some dot-com companies. Damiens.rf 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was the page was merged into Iron Man's armor and made into a disambig page. Non-admin closure. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure that a single invention of a fictional character neither deserves an article nor has any independent, reliable source (per WP:N). Goochelaar (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Borghuman) Look, my opinion is that pop culture has just as much relevance on here to describe fictitious things to let people know that they are fictitious and explain what in the world such well-known terms are as anything real. Wikipedia is about preserving humanity, in all its respects. Just as Klingons and Jedi are on Wikipedia, so should the Arc reactor be. HOWEVER, things like this should be linked to their master articles, and in this case "Iron Man," like this one is at the bottom of the article. I would propose that as a new Wikipedia policy, if it is not already encompassed by another.
The result was Keep per clear consensus. Non-admin closure despite one dissenter (WP:IAR). If you wish to review this decision, please leave me a message. I believe the suggestion to rename to Big Six Australian law firms is a good idea, to be discussed on the talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism? This term has just 32 Ghits and not all of them refer to what the article is talking about. Damiens.rf 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merged and redirect (already done) - Nabla (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Selective merge of material into the WMMS article, per WP:BOLD. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - Page should be deleted due to lack of sources and notability. At the very least this page should be merged into its radio home page, WMMS (FM). Page also not written in an encyclopedic tone. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't brought up before. Look at page discussion. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable radio station neonwhite user page talk 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Wave) - Nabla (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consists entirely of original research, no assertion of notability neonwhite user page talk 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that its great people are making pages about little known genres i made the blues metal page. could be expanded a little bit though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Disco) - Nabla (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems entirely original research, unverifiable, cannot find evidence that this exists so therefore non-notable neonwhite user page talk 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND, WP:FICT Non-notable music from TV show. Minor component of fictional work. No references. "Prod" was removed by article creator, so we have to do this the hard way. John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Notability has not been established. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This is an online game hosted by an individual in his basement. While at first glance the article appears well-referenced, a closer inspection reveals the article consists of nearly all original research using webarchives of the site, blogs, and even CSFBL's own forums as sources. This clearly makes this article fail the notability guideline. Quite simply, CSFBL has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Quartet 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (G1 - patent nonsense) by Gwalla. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Megapen (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an online game lacks any kind of independent sources. It's rather an in-detail decription of gameplay (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#HOWTO). While there are many Google hits, most are advertisements, download sites, forums and the like. Perhaps someone can supply some decent sources, so that the article can be kept (this has not happened in one year actually). But even then, removing all the unencyclopedic content would mean reducing the 30-kByte article to a one-paragraph stub, which is not terribly far from deletion; so I think it warrants a discussion here in any case. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be non-notable, also huge COI. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have looked at the website and looked up the artist. I have researched the artist found that he has achieved notibility through both his music as a country artist and Oklahoma songwriter/singer. He has music released that have received airplay. The article may need some revision, but should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyowen (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — Sandyowen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Now thirdgrade hammer is determinining what record labels are acceptable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that TenPoundHammer is incorrect on unreliable third party sources. Referenced is George Lang, Associated Press writer and respected critic in the field of music entertaiment. He is a very credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — 98.160.102.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't necessarily think it is so localized. I believe it focuses on the artist and his roots. All artist articles mention where they are from and how they got started. I know his music is popular all over the country. He is actually very talented and more well-known than what I believe you are aware of. Locality of Pearl Harber is localized to Hawaii, but it's influence it much broader than that. The same holds true of the music artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyowen (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People from New Zealand are even believing they experts on American music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep This article has been discussed and was redone to include sources in the past. The references are fine. The sources are fine and all who are opposed are doing so on personal opinion and ignoring that the article is referenced. It meets wikipedia standards and is fine. This is a well-known singer and songwriter in the United States. This artist is appreciated also by college alma maters and hometown and state he grew up in. None of the people opposing this article have done research on this artists music. Deleting this would be a mistake. Improvement of the article is the only thing I see that might possibly be discussed, but since it has references that are fine, this is not even something one should debate. Leave the article alone and quit debating. BillyJones1947 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjones1947 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — Billyjones1947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS default to KEEP. Although no sources have turned up as yet, the subject matter suggests they may be available on offline works which may require a visit to a library. Cleanup or advertorial wirting is no grounds for deletion per se, thus I recommend giving this article 3 months for sources to turn up before renomming. If nothing has been found then a delete result may be warranted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication that this is a notable private school. No substantial coverage by reliable third party sources is cited, and I can't immediately find any in the Google News archives. Sandstein (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. There's pretty clear consensus that this article should not be on Wikipedia, but should at most be a part of another article. If anyone wants the deleted page content in order to add it somewhere else, drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble classifying whether this is original research, original synthesis, or just non-notable, but in any case I don't think that it warrants an article; at best a brief mention in Domain name system. A number of sources are given, but these are basically blogs, private/minor websites, or pages that don't mention the main topic of the article (an initiative called "No-www"). The problem described here seems to be real, but it's just not a suitable encyclopedic topic. For those that believe in the Google test: The words/acronyms "no" and "WWW" are incredibly frequent, and counting alone doesn't show that the topic is notable. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball Kept, Who let the snow ball? Woof, woof woof woof! Non-admin closure ViperSnake151 00:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are non-notable albums, they fail to satisfy WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Reverend X (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Lorentz covariance#Lorentz violation. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable topic. All references are from single author, and all citations of these references are by the same author. No other mention in the literature that I could find. Mjamja (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete due to lack of demonstrated notability according to WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Waggers (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes a couple assertations to notability but not enough to pass WP:MUSIC. I see no reliable third party sources, just a bunch of false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Website archive source: Archive 1
Website archive: Online Music Distributor of Country Music On Broadway Hillous Butrum/Mac Wiseman distribution video Mac Wiseman
I believe the information to be accurate and thank you for the above citations. I will be searching the internet for more sources as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Differentjewelry (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) --Differentjewelry (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Differentjewelry (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links: 1. Lynn Alford Producer 2. Lynn Alford 3. Link Reference 4. Listing 5. Third Party Reference 6. Verified Source Differentjewelry (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comment: It seems no matter what is added, it is not enough. Do with what you will. I will not offer any other articles on any subject; a waste of time.....only to play this futile game of "keeper of the gate". BTW, you should research your "to do list" concerning Dixiana. Mark and Phil did not form a publishing company called Dixiana. Dixiana is a recording studio. You should spend much more time ensuring the accuracy of your "stubs".Differentjewelry (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Closed (non-admin closure). "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." WilliamH (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not contain any citations and is relatively small. The musical group being discussed existed only for a brief period of time before changing their name to Insane Clown Posse. Because the article otherwise has little relevance, I propose that what useful content lies in this article should be merged into the latter article. This is an opinion that is shared by four other Wikipedia users that have posted on the article's talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another non-notable "female-songwriter". The sole notability claim in the article is her winning the first prize in a pay-to-play scam festival. Damiens.rf 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable recently formed (2008) band. They have a myspace page, but no non-trivial 3rd party coverage. Damiens.rf 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No 3rd party coverage for this artist. A good number of ghits, but mostly for trivial listings or publicity. Damiens.rf 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Waggers (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything to verify the information in this article (specifically, I checked to see if any mention of UGK and the song "Stop n' Go" includes Bayku as the writer). Just about everything available through Google about this guy appears to be self-published - mostly networking site profiles, MySpace, YouTube, etc. The subject of this BLP has marginal or no notability and without any references it will be impossible to verify and maintain this article at the high standard of WP:BLP. Avruch T 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. It's neither notable nor encyclopedic and most certainly doesn't merit an article. Hu12 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. That's not an endorsement of some of the more thoughtless "keep" comments. Sandstein (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game server. No sources outside of the server's FAQ website. Fails all notability criteria at WP:WEB. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that FIBS is free and always has been free. No advertising. No play for money pitches.
To simply delete this reference because FIBS is a 'server' and the notability guidelines were written for web sites, would be an injustice to anyone who wants to learn and improve their game. We need to share information, not suppress it.averyk
— Averyk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Whipartist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (It's true. However, I'm certainly a subject-matter expert.)
— Don1andonly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was キープ...er, keep. --jonny-mt 04:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense. This is a list of words translated from Japanese into English and cannot be considered actual English language words. Globalscene (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete. Merging and other activities can be discussed at the talk page. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the mummy's curse. Now, in the Sinking of the RMS Titanic article, I wouldn't mind having a paragraph mentioning the three sourced theories (pack ice, coal fire, Olympic). However, as it stands now, this article is a hash of unreferenced absurdities (torpedo, mummy) and a long advertisement for the Olympic theory. No need for keeping this. Biruitorul (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've got an article on the UFO incident already. Having an endless series of witness accounts is rather excessive for this encyclopedia, and should remain the domain of true believers. Biruitorul (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "theory" was published in a comic book. Given that it has no mainstream support and its proponents are on the outer lunatic fringe, we need not provide them with a forum for airing their beliefs here. Biruitorul (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete A7 by Starblind just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Website that does not state its notability, written by a user who may have a conflict of interest (has the same name as the article). FusionMix 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Fram (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the outcome of this recent AfD test balloon, I'm nominating the remaining bibliographies of Batman Villains for deletion. These consist of the title bibliography and
While I grant these characters are more notable than the one in the previous AfD, notability was not a substantive factor in the decision. These articles are primary reference works that have been largely orphaned for approaching 2 years, and duplicate information available from DC Comics. Wikipedia is not a primary source and there is no reason that editors on the articles for these characters cannot provide footnotes or external links to DC Comics bibliography site.
In addition of course, none of these articles are either cited or maintained, making even their own internal (though non-wikipedia) value suspect. - Markeer 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete; whether to redirect/merge/etc. can be worked out on the talk page or by other normal editorial process. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why this episode of a series is notable. Historically, children have been winning appearances on television programs for a good while, what makes this particular one stand out from any other? There is no episode list that I saw on the series' article entry, otherwise I would have suggested a merge onto there. ArcAngel (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with prod rationale as I was also unable to find sources. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced bio of choreographer with dubious notability. Google searches for "nina hunt" were not helpful in establishing credibility. Declined speedy (I had it tagged as a hoax, but creator avers on talk page that they are a relative of Hunt). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alexf, I've left you a longish note on the articles talk page regarding this. 80.225.110.64 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also made an article about Dimitri Petrides, Nina's husband, that is supported by links I have attactched. This may help to disporve the proposterous claims that I have lied in the article about Nina.80.225.97.80 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I think anyone offered to choreograph two Olypic Gold Medalists for the Olympics must fall into the category "noteable".In terms of published sources, I am pretty sure that Bill and Bobbie (Irvine), in their 1970 autobiography "The Dancing years" discussed Nina's role in their careers. Though it is not in print yet, we were recently asked by someone in Canada writng a book about dancing to send some photographs of Nina and Dimitri for the book. Hope this is helpful and sorry to have created an article that has caused so much dispute. It is just something that I have always felt something that I have always felt strongly about (them each having a wikipedia article) as many of their pupils appear on wikipedia, many having gone on to much greater things (Len is now a T.V. personality for example and Bill and Bobbie's MBE's - the first ever awarded for dancing at the time they were awarded them in 1967 as far as I am aware, this could be added to their article -being yet more proof of this). As in most sports, the coaches have the least to gain and they were never recognised beyond several awards for their contribution to Latin. As further evidence, I knew relatively little about them apart from a picture of them dancing with the band of Victor Silvester OBE hung above our piano. I discovered an article telling a biography of Dimitri from a newspaper cutout from before his death which sparked my interest. I spoke with my Dad and, at the party of one of Nina's pupils spoke to Bobbie and some other friends of Nina's though I had never heard of many of them! Watching Strictly Come Dancing, I discovered that Nina had taught Len Goodman at one point and doing some searching on the interenet found references to both Nina and Dimitri on Walter and Miriam Kaiser's tribute site and one site listing winners of a particular dance award (it may have been the Carl-Alan) over the years with Nina on. I found a particularly old copy of Dimitri's book and my Mother's wedding shoes which had been made by "Petrides". One other pair of "pupils" who I have not mentioned and you will find on google are Sammy Stopford and barbara McColl and whose party it was I met the popel at. Hope this all helps and sorry again . All I can do is ask you to not delete the article. Thanks. 80.225.110.64 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nina_Hunt" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleep (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AS proof of Nina's sucess, I have taken a photo of the Carl-Alan and Golden Dance-Shoe awards and of a picture of her and Dimitri dancing with top conductor, Victor Silvester OBE and am struggling to put them on the article. Dleep.
The unpublished book by a Candian author I had to submit pictures for of Nina and her husband, Dimitri, is called "Ballroom Icons" if this can count as proof of third party Published (soon) evidence of this article not being a lie. As Nina's Grandson, I have easy access to all the facts. Dleep (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to google and type in "Carl-Alan award winners" and one hit will come up from idta listing all winners 1953-2004 on abode reader. If you scroll down, you will find awards being presneted by one of Nina's pupils, Len Goodman, and if you scroll down to 1968, you will find "Nina Hunt" written second on the list followed by Bill and Bobbie Irvine MBE, two of her pupils. I am holding the award right now and it says on the front "Carl-Alan Teachers Award 1968 Nina Hunt" and on the book give a long explanation of its History which, to prove that I have the trophy says "Carl-Alan 1968 Awarded Annually for outstanding contributions to Members of the Ballroom Dancing Industry First presented in 1953 and named after Carl L. Heimann and Alan B. Fairley" 80.225.217.27 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Dleep (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Dleep (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nina clearly counts as noteable having read the criteria. AS I have mentioned in the above entry, there are independent sources proving that she won awards, Dimitri (her husband) appeared in Newspapers before his death and she is a part of several books on the subject of Dance including, as I have mentioned, Bill and Bobbie Irvines autiobiographies, and an unpublished book which we have been asked to provide photograps and Nina and Dimitri for. Pupils of hers all appear on Wikipedia such as Len Goodman, Bill and Bobbie Irvine MBE and people who asked for her to choreograph them such as Torville and Dean and people such as Victor Silvester OBE who accompanied her dancing on several occasions, as testimony to which I have a picture of her and Dimtri dancing to his band playing which I have so far not managed to place on the article and it is entirely true to say that they would not have got to where they did without her, indeed she and Bobbie often joked that it was really Nina's MBE. She was asked to choreograph Olympic Gold Medalists! If this does not all count as "noteable" then the system for deciding what is must have some fundemental flaw. Dleep (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is accusing me of lying, then why is the page being deleted. The information is not verifiable unless you have access to editions of dance newspapers from the 1980's or access to the unpublished "Ballroom Icons" or have checked, as I suggested the website listing all Carl-Alan award winners since 1953. I am unsure how to load pictures I have taken of the awards and her and Dimitri (whose article has been deleted despite his nteability) dancing with renound musician Victor Silvester onto the site. There is nothing more I can do to prove it short of physically talking to you face to face or getting people who will back me up to talk to you face to face. If you are not accusing me of lying and have done research for the award website as I suggested, why is verification required. I understand the need for proof but have done my best to prove the truth of the article. Dleep (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can check dates of paper articles with her over next few days and post them. Will have to do some searching around but should be possible. Thanks for posting "keeps" and thanks to whoever cleared up the article and organised it. Dleep (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per withdraw. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains only an infobox. – Ilse@ 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, independant sources. None provided, none found. See also note on talk page, this might be simply an earlier name for another album, but I cannot confirm it. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains only an infobox. – Ilse@ 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Alison (A3: No meaningful, substantive content: Hoax / created by c/u confirmed socking team). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with prod rationale as I was also unable to find sources. Please also note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albert Ramos Jr (Football Player). Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Subject has received non-trivia coverage for more than one thing, so appears to meet WP:BIO. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
insufficient notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as advertising. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
future show violation of WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, leaning slightly towards merge. But anyone can merge the articles without any AFDs. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination ALSO includes the following articles:
These articles do not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Harris and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a home and away fan site. This should be an issue based on the relevant wikipedia policy and not a personal oppinon, keep this in mind. Unless it can be found that these characters recicved notable real world coveraged and this can be refrenced i believe that these articles should be deleted. If those other articles that have been deleted have been deemed not be 'real world notable' what makes these different?? I hope i have made my case clear. Printer222 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Quasirandom, they're valid search terms and should be covered in a list CariMeSpeak! 20:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A7) nancy (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete; I have (as suggested) added a sentence on this subject to 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay#Torch Security. Waggers (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable internet meme Relata refero (disp.) 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no relevant 3rd part coverage about this company. Damiens.rf 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. - Bobet 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
short and should be moved to wiktionary – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I'm watching you!) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Character in a comic strip for which there is no article, and not notable because it has not received media coverage. Malinaccier (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because it is the main character in a strip for which we have no article. Hiding T 13:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep based only on the post-DRV discussion, and the sources provided there. Sandstein (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, "keep" votes either made by IPs and sockpuppets, and / or not accompanied by a valid rationale. Took a while to sift through this one, but as noted, "quoted" is not primary coverage. Deiz talk 09:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23#James_Wesley_Rawles_.28closed.29--PeaceNT (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are all kinds of problems with this one, primarily with the sourcing. Almost all of the sources are self-generated blogs, which violates WP:RS. There are a few other sources, but the links are either dead or they don't in fact mention this person. The only source offered that stands up is a quote from the NYTimes nine years ago. I'm sorry, but that is not enough to establish notability. The article also fails WP:BK, because all of the claimed publications are from vanity presses, meaning that anyone who pays to have books printed can be "published" by those entities. Of the three presses cited here, Xlibris is a well-known vanity press, "CafePress.com" is nothing more than a sales portal through which vanity-press authors can sell their vanity-press books, and "Arbogast Publishing" took me to a porno site that gave me a virus I had to delete. In addition, there may turn out to be WP:AUTO and WP:COI problems here. So the notability just isn't in the cards for this article. Qworty (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
---
Rawles is certainly noteworthy because he is considered one of the key figures in the modern survivalist movement.
I must mention two glaring points of error in Qworty's deletion nomination narrative:
1.) Rawles is NOT just self-published. His novel was the best-selling book for Huntington House Publishers for more than four years. Huntington House was NOT a vanity press. (See their back list.)
2.) Qworty stated: "The only source offered that stands up is a quote from the NYTimes nine years ago." That is absurd! Rawles was quoted by The New York Times again just last week! See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html?_r=1&oref=slogin If Qworty had taken the time to read the wiki piece in detail, he would have seen that recent reference is included. (Rawles was quoted twice in that New York Times article, in both the print and online editions.)
I can see that "Qworty" had a very busy weekend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Qworty Perhaps he was in such a hurry that he just skimmed though the wiki entry on Rawles.
I note that Qworty is a self-proclaimed Humanist, and I suspect that his PROD was motivated by his anti-Christian disposition. (Rawles is an outspoken Christian.)
Perhaps some others would care to chime in...
Trasel (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, that is not a print article featuring him. It is an article about military hardware, not an article about Rawles. And no, being quoted in the NYTimes, no matter how many times, does not confer notability by our standards. If the Times were to run an article about him, then you would have something. We recently deleted a guy who'd written an article for the Times [30]. Unfortunately, the article was not about him, so it did not count toward notability. So is Rawles "just another blogger"? I'm afraid so. And as is well-established, blogs, no matter how numerous, do not constitute WP:RS. DailyKos is notable not because it is a blog with a zillion hits, but because there are articles in the NYTimes (and many other print publications) about DailyKos. That is the notability that is missing in this instance. The fact remains that survivalism is not primarily an Internet phenomenon, and that Rawles is not notable within the survivalism movement. Here, indeed, are 830 different BOOKS that mention survivalism:[31]. Rawles' books are themselves not notable, both because they fail WP:BK for being vanity published and because they have not been notably and widely reviewed. Notable reviews appear in the historical archive of GoogleNews, and as you can see here [32], Rawles receives only 4 hits since the beginning of time. That is hardly the mark of a notable author. Again, let me emphasize: It doesn't matter how many blog hits Rawles has or how many times he has paid vanity presses for publications. It doesn't matter how many times he is quoted in print articles that are not about him. In order to establish notability through WP:RS, the only thing that matters is how many print articles exist ABOUT him. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things I despise about Wikipedia is that know-nothing nobodies with sticks up their ass will shift goalposts as many times as necessary to try to eliminate useful content, but will write reams of pages no one reads about "notable" things like Pikachu.
Frankly, it reeks of jealousy.
10,500 GHits, including a variety of manufacturers who reference reviews and analysis he's done. It sure would be nice if someone reading said reviews could ask, "So, who's this guy comparing this stuff and what are his credentials? Maybe Wikipedia can tell me."
Nah, the bandwidth could be better used for Expendable Crewman #3 in Episode 87.
Incidentally, have you noticed that so far you're on a largely solo crusade here?
And his book WAS professionally published in its first printing.
Now, I missed a part here, Qworty: What are YOUR credentials on anything? Survivalism? Writing? Reporting? Is there any reason YOU are notable and we should care what you think?Mzmadmike (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - James Wesley Rawles is a well known and respected author and consultant in the emergency preparedness community. He has d wide verity of emergency preparedness publications to his credit and his blog is read worldwide. 3towedsloth, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.18.30 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) — 75.15.18.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Mr. Rawles is well known and well respected within the survivalist community, and Mr. Rawles books are available through many outlets, including Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble. No harm can come from keeping the entry. However, I do feel that harm may come from deleting the entry, as it would be seen by many as a political maneuver rather than one which calls into question the honesty of the article or its educational value. And after events such as Hurricane Katrina, we could all use a bit of his advice.
As mentioned above, this Afd was closed as "delete" on April 28, then was relisted May 2 per the discussion at DRV linked at the top of the discussion. The !votes below the line were posted after the relisting. Xymmax (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2008 (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)) . |
Some store food, gold, guns in case Y2K brings chaos. The Sacramento Bee, December 29, 1998 (Front page.)
Getting in Touch With Y2K and the Prophets of Doom. Press-Telegram (Long Beach, California), January 7, 1999
"Do you live in fear of the millennium?", South China Morning Post, April 6, 1999
How America Uses The Net (Subsection Profile: [James Rawles] The Y2K Survivalist) Yahoo! Internet Life Magazine, September, 1999, p. 108-109. <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/filters/bursts/0,3422,2298790,00.html>
Thursday Offers a Mini-Y2K Situation, Experts Say. The Sacramento Bee, September 8, 1999 (Front page.)
Some more recent print media interviews:
Duck and Cover: It’s the New Survivalism. The New York Times, April
6, 2008 Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html*
Survivalism Creeps Into the Mainstream. Chicago Tribune, April 24, 2008.
Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World. New York Sun,
April 21, 2008 Online: http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994
http://www.foxbusiness.com/video/index.html "Load up the Pantry"
And some that were electronic media only:
The Official Vehicle of Y2K, by Declan McCullagh, Y2KCulture.com. March 24, 1999. http://web.archive.org/web/19990508031202/www.y2kculture.com/arts/19990324.ferret.html
Five Novels of Freedom. World Net Daily Sept. 30, 1999. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14119
Survivalists get ready for meltdown. April 10, 2008 CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/
Now survivalism isn't just for eccentrics. SFGate.com. April 3, 2008. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/13/MNIL1008L2.DTL
The Changing Situation of Survivalism. The Situationist. April 10, 2008 http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/the-changing-situation-of-survivalism/
Global Food Crisis Sparks US Survivalist Resurgence. Australian Broadcast Corp. April 28, 2008. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/28/2228908.htm
James Wesley, Rawles on Survival Fire Arms. Y2KChaos. http://y2kchaos.entrewave.com/view/y2kchaos/s35p225.htm
Derivatives the next (and probably last) financial bomb? Online Traders Forum. March 19, 2008. http://www.onlinetradersforum.com/showthread.php?p=98454
An opponent: Why survivalists make me want to die. Gristmill. 23 April 2008.
http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994
http://arlingtoncardinal.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/4/21/3652291.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=96250
Here is the original source for same article, at the NY Times site, but they require registration to access some older articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080408131354.aspx
http://derekclontz.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/second-great-depression-just-weeks-away-warns-expert/
ABC News also contacted him to find people to interview on the subject of preparedness. http://www.survivalblog.com/2008/04/note_from_jwr_527.html
Rawles worked as an Associate Editor with Defense Electronics magazine in the late 1980s clearwaterpress.112283261
Managing editor of The C3I Handbook and The International Countermeasures Handbook. http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AUVJYOISOM0TT
Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse from Huntington House Publishers, ISBN 978-1563841552 (November 1998)
Interviewed by NYT, NYT, NY Sun, NYT, Fox News, Australian ABC, CNN Europe, sourced by ABC...Very successful professionally published novel, maintaining near-bestseller status in self-reprint. Apparently, SOMEONE thinks this guy is notable. They keep interviewing him.
I think I'm going to propose that tagging "delete" on an entry to "improve" it should be considered vandalism and grounds for locking an account. It happens too often. There are a great many niche subjects, but a niche of 100K (and some are in the millions) is still enough for both notability and encyclopedic interest.
And Qworty: I stated that you moved the goalposts--you did, but I welcome your attempt to do so this time, and that you were unqualified to comment on this subject, which was blatantly obvious. Both are verifiable facts, neither was a personal attack.
Yes, the article needs improvement. There are tags for that. Use them first. Delete later. If you people were surgeons you'd be amputating for hangnails.Mzmadmike (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty far-fetched to think that we will find someone that has written an article proclaiming that "Jim Rawles helped me design my secret lair in the Rocky Mountains..." That wouldn't be much of a secret then, would it? -- Trasel (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm a professional writer with 8 books in print and two pending, from major houses. Based on his sales, I regard him as pro. Just to be fair, I checked with the Executive Director of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Now, he doesn't meet the criteria for our market guidelines, but her comment was, "Clearly, if his books are selling then he is professional, in that sense of the word and probably in other senses of the word, too." I'm also going to check with a couple of specialist booksellers. There is, however, a line that gets crossed even in self-pub when one becomes a peer. We had this argument with the whole webcomic scandal last year. Any book in the top 10K on Amazon is a notable book. Breaking 2000 takes effort. Anything in the top 1000 is damned near bestseller. His book in question has maintained that sales status (above 10K, frequently above 2K) for close to 6 years now. You might compare to a Matt Bracken, who is entirely self published. If you don't know who he is, it's additional evidence that you're not familiar enough with the niche to comment.Mzmadmike (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case people want to add some. :)
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising thrice deleted, Creator asserts significant brand name and encyclopedic content. . Dlohcierekim 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information on Vertroleum is no more nonsense or blatant promotion than articles for Coca-Cola or Ipods. It IS information on a product that deserves looking at.
If it is deleted again I will honor and not contest but I still do not understand the difference in this article and those posted by companies and individuals touting other products. I have read rules for posting and in MHO a good many product listed here also break those rules. Again just my 2 cents DMMc (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rapper with minimal media coverage that is mostly—if not all—trivial. Fails WP:MUSIC. Pretty much all content has been added by a string of single-purpose accounts. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league yet. --Jimbo[online] 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per sourcing and improved verification of notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I nominated this article for deletion but have totally forgotten my password. This is a page about a candidate for elected office who has no other notability. There is clear precedent that candidates for office are not sufficiently notable unless there is some other claim to notability. I don't think any other claim is sufficiently asserted here - it really just seems to be a vanity page. 86.144.83.215 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). It is clear that there is consensus to keep this article, not least from merging/moving proposals, and as such this is a content discussion best suited at the article's talk page. WilliamH (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? All the issues discussed in the previous comments and more. E.g.: it contains incorrect definitions and/or descriptions. like that a molecule contains the three isotopes. This article should be deleted and the article oxygen-18 corrected and expanded. That is, if you think that the this wiki should be regarded as a serious reference cource. Jclerman (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
University based composer without great distinction. Should even be article? Recommended for deletion due to notability issues. 165.123.130.78 (talk · contribs) Nomination recreated from edit summaries. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is absolutely incorrect - DELETE IT, PLEASE
The anomaly is the difference in density between a pure O-16 containing gas and a gas containing also heavier isotopes. No oxygen is anomalous. Jclerman (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Huon (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No independent reliable sources, fails the primary notability criterion. Was prodded, the editor who removed the prod said that the show is "being discussed primarily on blogs", which do not confer notability. Huon (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. Fabrictramp (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Non-notable, made-up-in-school-one-day game Booglamay (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firearms are not exempt from WP:N. Dorftrottel (bait) 11:14, May 2, 2008 11:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. No prejudice against recreation if/when reliable, verifiable sources are found that show the notability of this person, per WP:BIO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person. Main notability claim in the article appears to be that he is a Parkinson's sufferer, and founder of the "Bob Horton Trust". The trust gets no google hits at all, apart from this page. Searching for "Bob Horton" journalist also gets no relevant results. Delete as lacking verifiability. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. (Keep by default) Waggers (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable book - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical/Inappropriate user page.
The result was Keep. Other than the nominator, there were no delete opinions. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:39 2008 May 7 (UTC) (non-admin)
does not satisfy WP:PROF, claim to have authored and co-authored over 100 papers, unverified Michellecrisp (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book published by the "very left green group", titled Red Light for Yellow Cake is not included in Falk's list of five books. If we include this it makes a total of six books. But we shouldn't focus narrowly on Falk's books. It is clear that he has also devoted much time to consultancies and these include:[48]
If you are interested in Falk's recent work, please see these lists of publications for recent years: [49] and [50] Johnfos (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax, vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is fictional, this person was not drafted by the Miami Heat, and there is no information available on him. Numerous slanderous edits have been made suggesting vandalism. Cribbie13 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted merge but target merge (Olympic sports) did not want this orphan. Delete because no content salvageable. Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete essentially per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Sandstein (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally inappropriate. The page's founding assumption is NPOV; it's an essay; it will never be encyclopedic jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability and reliable sources THobern 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The result was merge and redirect to Death_(personification)#In_Abrahamic_Mythology. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no accessible evidence that memitim is a class of angels in any context. The word is simply translated. Admittedly I don't have access to the references, but suspect that they also just mention the term. If kept we need a better context than "biblical lore". Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 07:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Interested editors are invited to discuss a possible merge at the relevant talkpages. Skomorokh 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of it, and Google books brings up 0 hits. The only web hits are Wikipedia mirrors and blogs like this: [ http://www.armenianaryans.com/AryanCommunity/archive/index.php5?t-71.html] Sumerophile (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article if not a hoax. Otherwise delete Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, they do not use it as a hyphenated term, but they do seem to state that some scholars do think both terms refer to the same entity. Better refs are in order. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn by D.M.N. (non admin closure by Roleplayer (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Not-notable local election. Could easily be deleted, or merged into United Kingdom local elections, 2008, however it definitely does not warrant a full page on it. D.M.N. (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I withdraw nomination. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (including images) as WP:OR and non-notable fringe theory. Sandstein (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this page contains a theory that was kicked out the nuclear structure article for being too fringey. It sure looks sketchy to me, but I'm no expert. FCSundae (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. Malinaccier (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship does not confer notability, so as thus she is non-notable as per WP:BIO. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 06:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the creator of this article may be the owner of mywaves.com, though I cannot be sure. I am also sure that this is against WP:NEO. Oore (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Obvious hoax, Deleted per WP:SNOW. Nakon 01:52, 4 May 2008 (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)) . |
Unsourced. Possible hoax written by an editor with the same name as article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the user, and have added citations to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcberry (talk • contribs) 05:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Artist does indeed fail WP:MUSIC. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio.I feel like a tourist (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An essay, not an article, about what is essentially a neologistic concept. Prod removed by anon. JuJube (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable concentration camp guard. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged for speedy deletion. Considering that there has been an AfD a couple years back which was closed as "no consensus", I found in unsuitable for speedy deletion. However, doing a little bit of research on the subject and looking over that AfD, I have decided to relist it. I feel that the closing admin's decision on the previous AfD was a poor one, The only closing "keeps" did not do anything to demonstrate notability but only referred to it as a "popular website." As it appears to me, the site fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Trusilver 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as A1 by Discospinster (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only hit on Google is this article in somone's userspace...appears to be a hoax. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No significant secondary coverage at all. Individual does not appear to be encyclopedically notable, at least not yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization. The article was created by a COI and has remained unsourced for two years. I could only find several passing mentions of REC Networks in reliable sources. BlueAzure (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overhyped student record, a few student awards, but no sign of passing WP:PROF or accumulating some other real notability. Was listed as a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, and I agree with the spirit of that listing, but I thought it would be more appropriate to take it to a full AfD: there are some claims of notability in the article, I just don't find them convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; closed early per WP:SNOW. Far inferior article compared with subprime mortgage crisis. Inappropriate tone, original research/essay, not salvageable. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR Essay. Failed prod - author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Malinaccier (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be absolutely no consensus on what "city proper" means. Because of this, and because it'd probably be much better to simply list the largest urban areas and metropolitan areas, which is much less controversial, I nominate this page for deletion unless some consensus on what "city proper" really means. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per CSD G10. Yes, upon a closer look this is pretty clearly just a hoax and an attack page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ATHLETE. I could not find any secondary sources. Oore (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nominator withdrew nomination, no delete votes, consensus is to keep. Non-admin closure Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither notable nor quirky as an article - also lacking references and sources Ecoleetage (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged (non-admin closure), Clear reason to merge w/ Race to the bottom. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not immediately obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization, presented in an article that reads like an advertisement Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Malinaccier (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability appears borderline, no third-party sources. Wizardman 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable location in an article that lacks references and sources Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : WARNING Voting delete may create an evil precedent which I do not wish to see. This example would support the deletion of at least 56 articles from Category:OC Transpo. I wish to see those article remain here on Wikipedia. However, again, if this article is deleted, I fear it will create a nasty model which should never be utilized as a precendent. I will be watching the turnout of this debate and expect a comment on this issue. Furthermore, if this is not addressed I will assume that the OC Transpo Articles, which are similar, should also be nominated for deletion or that this entire process should be appealed. --CyclePat (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete under G11, Blatant Advertising. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable theater, presented in an article that reads like an advertisement. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fire department in an article that reads like an advertisement Ecoleetage (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus asserts that the article is not "future history" as WP:CRYSTAL says, but verifiable, notable scholarly commentary backed up by many reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't matter if there are other pages like this one, they are against the rules and should be dealt with accordingly. Also wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a "Fun site". This articles clearly falls into the category of "Future History", and it has no place in an encyclopedia. Further more wikipedia policy states that "While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen." (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section 3). On that note, I would like to point out that in the article's introduction there is a sentence that says "The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time.", which clearly shows that such predictions are not reliable and are speculation and speculation is against the rules as they are not facts and encyclopedias present facts. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (for now). Spellcast (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncommon and barely used term, not even used by the purported examples. No reliable third-party sources support its existence, only occasional use in forums. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lone source comes from a tripod website message board (WP:NOBJ). A martial arts style that may or may not have originated in jail?? Delete and turn the page into a disambig page. Endless Dan 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus, and per excellent reasoning provided by User:Ihcoyc. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable company (CSD A7), but it seems at least plausible that it might in fact satisfy the notability guidelines for corporations. It sure does get quite a few Google hits, if nothing else. Nominating the obtain further opinions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindergarten schools not notable under WP:SCHOOL. Should be speedied? Camillus 00:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references and not likely to be because the subject isn't notable enough for an independent source to write about. Article also lacks context, although that could be addressed. dramatic (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A poorly sourced footballer, amy be playnig in unknown lower league level. The creater of the article may be a pro-Hungarian one, to create all article for the region now with in Ukriane. Matthew_hk tc 00:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep: formal rules for disambig pages are now satisfied after user:Laudak's addition. `'Míkka>t 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user clearly fails to understand the purpose of disambiguation pages. There is nothing to disambiguate (besides a single article title) `'Míkka>t 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]