Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brian G. Crawford (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 5 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 4 >

Purge server cache

March 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted - userfied NSLE (T+C) at 06:09 UTC (2006-03-05)

Vit Zvanovec

This is clearly a self-reference, and does not belong in the article namespace. There is no claim to notability aside from within the Wikipedia community, so the official complaint is Wikipedia:Notability (people). Delete Makemi 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user has now userfied this (User:Ross.Hedvicek/Vit Zvanovec), so I believe it can probably now be speedied (I didn't originally speedy it because I didn't know where it should go, and wanted to give the user time). Makemi 04:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper (web site)

Non notable web site (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Harro5 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undead Soldiers Of Ares

Was prodded, prod removed. Seems to be about non-notable gaming group, and their exploits in a game. Fancruft. Delete Makemi 00:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. bainer (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey

POV fork of Armenian Genocide not discussed at all on talk page of article. In fact, previous consensus was that a page such as this should not be created. Point being that the goal is to get the original article to inclusive NPOV, rather than splinter off the minority view. pschemp | talk 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination. I feel the debate will be damaging to the community. pschemp | talk 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if nominator provides evidence of a well-established consensus against such an article on the talk page. Otherwise, weak keep - it doesn't seem to be intended as a POV fork but rather as a factoring-out of material into a proper sub-article. Which I think might be legitimate, because the present-day disputes within Turkish society and between Turkey and the rest of the world are really a topic reasonably distinct from the historical discussion of the genocide itself, so a separate treatment might be not such a bad idea after all. Lukas (T.|@) 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok...here's one, (I am only including the opinions of serious editors to the page, it attracks a lot of POV spam and such from random anons. Also, its not like eveyone lines up after each comment and says, "I agree" or I disagree".) Actually, we would delete such an article since it is a POV fork. The point is that the Armenian genocide is hardly contested outside Turkey and widely accepted as a historical fact. Immediately after the genocide and more recently it is partially accepted in Turkey too. Both the history of the genocide and the fact that many Turks and few others have reservations is well covered in the article. Therefor it is NPOV. We also cover the recent recognition of the genocide in Turkey, but are still weak on its early recognition. gidonb 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yo, guys, you are voting on a proposal that has been WITHDRAWN. It is still here for the records, but is not an active afd. Please respect my decision and stop adding votes. pschemp | talk 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 10:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colduck

Non-notable, vanity-ish. Being a radio news guy on a minor community college station is not really notable. It's just a job. DanielCD 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jombob

hoax neologism, not a real architectural movement as said DVD+ R/W 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 03:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Light Smashers

Non-notable, possibly hoax. TigerShark 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is a team which takes part in a online-football management game - it's not causing any problems or upsetting anyone on-line so please re-consider deleting this page.

Thanks

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theweegrafter (talk • contribs)

Above user's edits have all involved this article. Royboycrashfan 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Clear consensus established. Punkmorten 09:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERef, PRef, VRef

Three duplicative articles on a NN product by a NN company. Company website is an ad for a bartending DVD. ERef is their term for the MPEG version available for download. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

{subst:afd3 | pg=Matteo Carandini}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable club. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Chix

Non-notable gamecruft. Brian G. Crawford 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(note: The link to this AfD from the page itself has been sorted Deiz 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_5&oldid=42283577"