Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Centralized discussion |
 |
| Discussions |
|---|
| Conclusions |
- 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 was Keep. Prodego talk 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of automobile model and marque oddities
The previous AfD has ended with no consensus because many users and the closer focused on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as reasons for deletion, which one can argue can be alleviated by extensive editing, splitting and renaming. However, one important and valid reason for deletion was lost along the way - WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even split and renamed, the contest of this page would still present a collection of unencyclopedic trivia. WP should not and does not (hopefully) contain lists such as List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name.
Please vote delete if you agree with this very argument or vote keep if you can substantiate that this article does not violate this policy. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Update - the related (nomen omen) List of unrelated vehicles with identical nameplates was deleted for similar reasons. NOT deleting this article now would be nothing short of a case of WikiSchizophrenia.
I also hope some of the editors of those articles managed to create a copy within their user pages, or perhaps will dig one out of the Internet Archives, so that it won't be lost. Those are really fun and it would be a pity of so much work just went up in fumes. They only don't belong in Wikipedia, but perhaps in some less encyclopedic and more relaxed, car- or trivia-oriented Wiki. Bravada, talk - 09:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, too specific and trivial information to be of interest, listcruft. JIP | Talk 17:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There are fairly specific grounds for inclusion in the "list". Perhaps it should be moved to Automobile model and marque oddities, since there is in fact more discussion here than just a "list", and calling anything a "list" anymore seems to be waving a red flag in front of the bull. Lists must hide, it seems. Smerdis of Tlön 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - still, how is this information encyclopedic? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, the article seems a bit lacking in focus and direction - it's not clear what actually constitutes an 'oddity' - mostly it reads just like some guy rambling on about things that he finds curious or interesting. I doubt that many people would be seeking this information - so it's mostly just a big waste of time for the editor(s). On the other hand, I'm not a 'deletionist' and I don't think this page is actually doing any harm beyond the $0.01 worth of disk space it consumes. It's not misleading anyone with false information (as far as I can tell) - so...meh...keep it I guess. (NOTE: In the interests of openness, I should note that I was surprised to discover that I'd actually contributed to the article - but that was only to correct Mini to MINI). 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Tentative Keep and relist on Deletion review, too soon after original closure. Morgan Wick 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - ok, and when will it be OK to submit it for normal deletion again? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs some cleanup of terms like "interesting" (an opinion that belongs in a magazine column rather than an encyclopedia article) but the basic information is valuable (and interesting). Fg2 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - so perhaps I'll just go and start this List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name. Also, how about List of motor cars whose front track exceeds their height? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - which brings us back to the age-old m:Deletionism versus m:Inclusionism debate. I'm an unabashed inclusionist and I don't have a problem with these ultra-obscure lists - even the two ridiculous examples you mention here. They are pointless - probably nobody will ever read them - but the cost in terms of disk space consumed by all of these ridiculous lists put together is negligable compared to even a single unnecessary 2000x2000 resolution picture of a Pokemon or something. The only kinds of lists I object to are the ones that are downright misleading or which will turn into untruths if not actively maintained (which they won't be). So I would delete a hypothetical List of the most popular candybars because in six months tastes will change and the list will be wrong. But List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name may be incomplete - but so long as it has the template at the top that warns that the list is incomplete - then we aren't misleading anyone. The red flag for me is lists with superlatives in the title "The most XXX" or "The worst XXX" - those are unmaintainable and must die. So what is the benefit to keeping these pointless articles? Well, it prevents flamefests between people who wish to delete them and the people who (often stupidly) created them. That's a good thing for harmony and peace in the Wikisphere. But this is a deep and ancient debate and we aren't going to resolve it here. The fate of these articles randomly depends on the ratio of inclusionists to deletionists who happen to sign the AfD. SteveBaker 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - so perhaps I'll just go and start this List of actresses whose given name is longer than family name. Also, how about List of motor cars whose front track exceeds their height? Bravada, talk - 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm also an inclusionist, and am unhappy that this was again proposed so soon after a no-concensus was reached. Shall we keep voting until folks who want to keep it fail to notice and respond? --SFoskett 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- This was not my intention as nominator. The last nomination was closed with no consensus because the discussion sprawled over too many unrelated issues, and some reasons for deletion mentioned were not applicable or sufficient. Yet one important reason prevails and it has been omitted by most disputants and the closer, so I wanted it to be discussed specifically - as explained in the lead section. Unfortunately, only one of the persons participating in the current discussion related to it in their comments. Bravada, talk - 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I'll take on the "indiscriminate list of trivia" item. That entry lists certain specific things that should not be included. Among these are Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Travel guides, Memorials, Instruction manuals, Internet guides, Textbooks and annotated texts, and Plot summaries. This is none of these. It is an article about odd marques and makes of automobiles, where "odd" specifically means "unusual" (per wiktionary). These are all unusual. As for whether it belongs here, I feel it does. It was created and edited by many people, contains much interesting information, and is no less encyclopedic than most other lists (see List of recent automobile models by type for a particularly ridiculous list). At least it's somewhat interesting, factual, and fairly complete... However, I have another suggestion: Perhaps this should be merged with the marque article, since these seem in general to support that topic. --SFoskett 13:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it could be a very good solution! I think the marque article could explain how marques and model names are used and give examples of some peculiarities, so that some of them listed here could be salvaged. Do you think you could do that? Bravada, talk - 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I'll take on the "indiscriminate list of trivia" item. That entry lists certain specific things that should not be included. Among these are Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Travel guides, Memorials, Instruction manuals, Internet guides, Textbooks and annotated texts, and Plot summaries. This is none of these. It is an article about odd marques and makes of automobiles, where "odd" specifically means "unusual" (per wiktionary). These are all unusual. As for whether it belongs here, I feel it does. It was created and edited by many people, contains much interesting information, and is no less encyclopedic than most other lists (see List of recent automobile models by type for a particularly ridiculous list). At least it's somewhat interesting, factual, and fairly complete... However, I have another suggestion: Perhaps this should be merged with the marque article, since these seem in general to support that topic. --SFoskett 13:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- This was not my intention as nominator. The last nomination was closed with no consensus because the discussion sprawled over too many unrelated issues, and some reasons for deletion mentioned were not applicable or sufficient. Yet one important reason prevails and it has been omitted by most disputants and the closer, so I wanted it to be discussed specifically - as explained in the lead section. Unfortunately, only one of the persons participating in the current discussion related to it in their comments. Bravada, talk - 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy if one of the contributors wants to take responsibility for moving it off Wikipedia, then delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Interesting but not encyclopedic. Not much of the content should be merged into articles about individual vehicles or manufacturers, and the topic does not belong here at all, but virtually all of it would be good for some automotive reference whose purpose and standards differ from Wikipedia's. Barno 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The "inclusionism vs. deletionism" debate is not helpful in resolving this AfD; people should leave that noise on policy-debate pages and discuss the facts of this topic and how they fit policies. "Let the troublemakers have their way to avoid fights" is neither WP policy nor a way to produce a better encyclopedia; this instead reduces WP's credibility. Barno 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the article is valid to be on Wikipedia. For God's sake look at it, so much work has gone into it. It is wholly verifiable and sourceable. If there are issues with part of it, change it, don't delete it.
- Split into multiple articles. --Gray Porpoise 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. DS 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brian Hood
Hoax article by creator of now-deleted hoax article Patrick Fitch, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Fitch; neither of the claimed TV shows has an entry on IMDB. NawlinWiki 00:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Searching on "Brian Hood Most Likely" brings up no relevant hits. The IMDB link is for a different Brian Hood. --Brianyoumans 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable Betacommand 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete not notable? that is giving it too much credit... hoax. delete Nick Catalano contrib talk 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this sounded familiar, and sure enough....
SpeedyDelete per nom and (if applicable) as repost of deleted content. -- H·G (words/works) 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete — It may be a repost of deleted content, but the repost of deleted content CSD criteria only applies for articles deleted through XfD processes. Even still, he's not notable. alphaChimp laudare 07:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. rootology (T) 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. It was created at the same time as Patrick Fitch which was speedy deleted and both articles were linked from Dean Gaffney here. The image appears to be two random guys who met Dean Gaffney who decided to call themselves his co-stars just so the image would stay on the article, and then they created fake articles about themselves. This is part of ongoing vandalism to the Dean Gaffney article. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --HResearcher 11:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Just leave it its funny! This is comedy gold. 'Brian Hood' is a well known firgure. I personally can vouch for that. It is very funny —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totanpole (talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 11:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:16 (UTC)
- Delete obvious hoax — NMChico24
20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nominator as a non-notable hoax article. Yamaguchi先生 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Scott3 15:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was redirect to Johnathan Wendel. Morgan Wick 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fata1ity
drivel Selmo 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have decided to be bold and make into a redirect to our existing article, which should have existed already. Morgan Wick 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with Morgan Wick. NCurse
work 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was Delete. Prodego talk 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citrus drop
Importance in question. Extremely short article about store-brand soda flavor. Might deserve a brief mention on the main Kroger article, but scope is too limited for a full article all its own. — NMChico24 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Um.... yeah as per nom. Bwithh 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not only does it supposedly taste like Mountain Dew, they also copied Mountain Dew's design! Kalani [talk] 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Generic drink. ::takes a sip of citrus drop:: SynergeticMaggot 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not Notable Betacommand 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete despite my like of both Citrus Drop and Drop Red (yum!). Generic soft drink brands are not notable individually, though perhaps there's a place for a reference to the Drop on the Mountain Dew article in a "generic versions" section, or in the Kroger article as part of a discussion on its generic brands. --FreelanceWizard 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable beverage. And for the record, it does taste like Mountain Dew, but real Mountain Dew is better. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Kroger. Or just delete. VoiceOfReason 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if it tastes like Mt. Dew then it deserves to be deleted anyways :-) Nick Catalano contrib talk 04:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — No assertion of notability per above. alphaChimp laudare 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Kroger; the drink is pretty well-known in parts of the American south. But a separate article? Certainly not. -- H·G (words/works) 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above, and redirect to Kroger. rootology (T) 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to User:Bipolarzebra. --HResearcher 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 11:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, but don't mind delete either—per above. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:19 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete into Kroger per above. Attic Owl 16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Kroger or delete. JIP | Talk 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Czj 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into the Kroger article or alternately create a List of generic Kroger brands type page and mention it there. RFerreira 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above. --Gray Porpoise 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. Sango123 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ZeldereX Online
No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE (as per User:Peephole). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, looks like a game guide. WP:NOT. SynergeticMaggot 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above Betacommand 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Peephole 03:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per issues with WP:NN, NOT, WEB, and SOFTWARE. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Michael 07:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. rootology (T) 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete webgamecruft --HResearcher 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — per nom, is too much of a walkthrough than an encyclopedia article. Draicone (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 11:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:21 (UTC)
- Keep Let it stay, you have so many other articles on stuff like this game that are 10x worse. Get rid of those first.--71.52.116.76 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Zelderex is cool. Wiki is cool. So let it stay. Ζχ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.86.252 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Paulus89 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 18:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was Speedy delete non notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christopher Paul Robinson
Did some researching and can't turn up any evidence of notability. The article's subject seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Crystallina 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Tried several different searches in google. Nothing much regarding this artist or ensemble. Here were my results: [1], [2], [3] — NMChico24 01:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. While he has, according to his site, been around the world a bit to play, I don't think that counts as a pass on WP:MUSIC. When one includes NMChico24's evidence, this fellow is non-notable. Furthermore, "Atlas Ensemble" gets no matches in amazon.com music, so I don't think his group is notable either. --FreelanceWizard 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC InvictaHOG 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete — WP:NN & spam advertising Betacommand 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. not notable. biggest claim to fame is having played at the Montreux Jazz festival in July 2004 per his website. His role cannot be substantiated.Ohconfucius 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and above, nn. rootology (T) 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 11:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt August 6, 2006, 13:20 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete — CSD A7, fails to assert the notability of the subject. alphaChimp laudare 13:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was redirect. Once again, people: Please just redirect these things, rather than wasting time with AFD.--SB | T 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Professional basketball
Dictionary definition. All of the information here is contained in other articles, and I don't see how this could be expanded much to make it worthy of existing on its own. fuzzy510 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary.--Jusjih 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki as per Jusjih. EVula 02:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki per above. Redirect to basketball if Wiktionary won't take it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki — per above Betacommand 05:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: if deleted, this should be redirected to basketball, obviously. — sjorford++ 07:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki And also, please redirect to bastketball. rootology (T) 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Professional basketball" is not an idiom. It is a straightforward combination of the two words "professional" and "basketball". This does not satisfy Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. The transwiki system is not a means for avoiding dealing with problem articles. Uncle G 10:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Uncle G. I don't think a redirect is needed, a search for "professional basketball" will also reveal "basketball". --HResearcher 11:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the above —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 12:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to basketball. You could probably expand with discussions of the various non-US professional leagues, but it's all really covered in other articles and summarized in basketball. Kuru talk 13:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary --Shaymus22 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Basketball, reasonable search term. Neutral as to whether it should be transwikied or not. JYolkowski // talk 17:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Basketball. As per above. Morgan Wick 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- Redirect to basketball per JYolk (or perhaps to List of basketball leagues). Joe 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I have transwikied the whole edit history to Wiktionary. I suggest redirecting to basketball next.--Jusjih 01:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually you might want to correct the claim that professional sport is for profit there. NCAA are for profit too, they just don't pay their players. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. Sango123 23:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Webee Boys
The article is entirely unreferenced, abysmally written, and concerns an apparently non-notable band. John254 02:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if an "Internet hit" could be backed up, it isn't a WP:MUSIC criteria. Erechtheus 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete yet another band with a myspace page. They claim to be touring Antartica, so as soon as someone finds sources, I'll change my vote to keep. Good luck with that.--Kchase T 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Nick Catalano contrib talk 04:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable and likely hoax. If the touring of Antarctica and puerile text doesn't mark it as such, I searched at Last.fm and found no mention.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete non-notable band. -- Gogo Dodo 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete — db-band Betacommand 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom band not notable, and without track record. article unreferenced. but it appears there may be grounds for mergeto Ricky Ullman, one of the band members.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs).
- From Ricky Ullman: "The band started as a joke but due to their popularity, it became a reality." This joke-turned-real band is reasonably covered in the other article. Oppose merge.--Kchase T 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete looks like vandalism to me. --HResearcher 12:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is considered "good form" to
strike outyour old comments when you change your mind, instead of overwriting them entirely. Morgan Wick 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is considered "good form" to
Delete. 63 G-hits for "Webee Boys". Kchase02, that comment on Ricky Ullman was added by the person who ultimately created the article, and is therefore dubious. If it is legit, I support a merge, as there appears to be no other legit claim to notability. Morgan Wick 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- My comment was confusing. I meant oppose merge and delete (which I still mean). Since the google results for this are so underwhelming, I also removed the reference from the article. Thanks for catching this apparent hoax.--Kchase T 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas
The article is entirely unreferenced, and is comprised entirely of a plot summary of a non-notable episode of an implicitly referenced television show whose existence has not been established. John254 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless the show can be demonstrated to exist and be notable, in which case this article should be merged into it at present. BigHaz 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete no context. Danny Lilithborne 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete from a vandal Nick Catalano contrib talk 04:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- To be fair to the user who created it, the vandalism warnings are only related to removal of the AfD tag from this particular article, rather than anything more system-wide. Not that it excuses removing the tag three times or so, just that it puts a slightly different spin on the events. BigHaz 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — as per BigHaz Betacommand 05:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nonsense or no context, especially with creator's removal of AfD notice. Morgan Wick 01:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - We Wikipedians can create articles on whatever we want; this article just needs some cleanup, that's all. And the show does exist. Some of the episodes are on YouTube. --Plainnym 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the general practice to have an article on the show before an article on the individual episodes? BigHaz 22:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This article is linked from Super_Mario_Bros._television_series. This appears to be an episode of Captain N and the Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. I watched that show when I was a child so I know it exists. Wikipedia already has several articles on television articles, so it appears that a television episode is a notable topic for wikipedia. There has already been some debate about the notability of television episodes at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes. That page states: "First, create an article on the television show. Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show. Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles." If the article is too short, it might be a good idea to merge all the episodes of a season into one article. Also, one episode of this show consisted of a 15 minute "mini-episode" of Super Mario Bros., 30 minutes of Captain N, then another 15 minutes of Mario Bros. Thus, I think that if each episode has its own article, it might be better for the two "mini-episodes" that were aired as part of a bigger episode to share an article. In regard to the article needing references: shouldn't the episode itself count as a reference? Q0 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT for plot summaries. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was redirected. Morgan Wick 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Surgical prosthetics
This is just a definition with little potential for expansion. Transwiki. Erechtheus 03:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Withdraw. I agree with the below editors and have boldly redirected as suggested. Erechtheus 00:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it has a vast potential for expansion, but any need is obviated by the already existing stub Prosthesis, to which it should be Redirected.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Prosthesis alphaChimp laudare 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect — Betacommand 05:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Prosthesis InvictaHOG 16:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. Sango123 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Enuff Said Records
zero non-Wikipedia ghits JianLi 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I have been watching this one since its inception, waiting for them to come up with anything notable about it. ViridaeTalk 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't assert notability. -/- Warren 04:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Nick Catalano contrib talk 04:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete — WP:NN Betacommand 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, apparent vanity article (editor who authored it shares a name with one of the label's "founders"), and I couldn't find anything verifiable on any of the three records listed in the article, much less on the label itself. -- H·G (words/works) 05:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — per nom., fails WP:CORP --AbsolutDan (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per everyone else. You would think "one of the most influential crews of the entire rap game" would at least have a website! Morgan Wick 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Warrens. In very bad shape, non-notable record label/movement, and a search brings up almost nothing related to the article. --S-man 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. Sango123 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cackbean
Article describes itself as being a GUI paradigm, but Google returns precisely two hits, both referring to this page. Article was created by a user with one edit, too, so it's probably a case of something someone made up in school one day. -/- Warren 04:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Possible WP:CB.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete — WP:NN Betacommand 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Kchase T 05:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see what's speediable about it, but it's a clear neologism. Morgan Wick 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator, most likely nonsense and best-case non-verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was keep. Sango123 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Karate (Atari 2600)
This is an article about a non-noteable minor Atari game; furthermore, the only actual text in the article is a reference to a DIFFERENT article that says the game is "one of the worst ever on the Atari". On top of that, the only OTHER thing present in the article is a box that was ripped off the Atari Age website without permission. There is nothing in this article worth keeping. Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete unless the site saying that it was one of the worst games is considered a valid source. The fact that the link exists isn't a bad thing, since it backs the claim up. BigHaz 05:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment — could keep if it passes WP:NN and the POV is removed Betacommand 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Except for the fact that the POV is the entirety of the article (with the exception of the copyright-vio pictures stolen from Atari Age). Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- As far as the POV goes, the fact that it's said to be such a bad game is a fact - while if the article said "It is one of the worst games...", that would be closer to POV. As it currently stands, the article says that someone else says that the game stinks and then links to a place where someone else says exactly that. The pictures and their copyright is a different matter. BigHaz 06:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that the POV is the entirety of the article (with the exception of the copyright-vio pictures stolen from Atari Age). Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if it's one of the worst games, I'd say that would be a claim to notability rather than non notability; If notability means goodness, Batman and Robin would be speediable. Even if the reference is removed, the game is of some visibility given the Atari source. As for the pictures, I imagine a fair use claim could be made. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as Atari games are notable. The game is also mentioned in MobyGames. Carioca 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's labeled in external media as above for some notiriety, and merits a stub for that alone. And I hate my longing to help on AfD as it now reminded me of this thing. Ugh. rootology (T) 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Any game is notable....to me Konman72 10:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep for the reasons give by Rootology. 146.87.255.19 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, real Atari 2600 game, article is very short but fairly well written, criticism is sourced. JIP | Talk 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep real game for a notiable system. It may need expansion but I don't believe that deletion is required. --Edgelord 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JIP. Expansion would be nice, but deletion isn't necessary. BryanG(talk) 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I've found a tasty quote from an established review site that backs up its notable awfulness, added it.
- Keep. The article could stand to be expanded a bit, but I don't see how removing this helps Wikipedia. --L33tminion (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Rootology and Edgelord. Joe 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's notable for being really awful. It could stand expansion, though. Ace of Sevens 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the article could easily be expanded gameplay-wise. The image isn't a problem because it's been sourced to AtariAge. Also, DigitalPress is a notable site, so if the statement is made less POV (maybe by just merely mentioning the DP article), then that problem's solved as well. -- gakon5 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this is an article about a legitimate Atari 2600 title which should be expanded over time, the criticism should be clarified that the source is DigitalPress unless multiple sources agree on this point. Yamaguchi先生 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per my "any game you could buy from stores worldwide (or at least nation-wide) is notable enough" gut feeling. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep there werent so many Atari 2600 games that were made, and each is as notable as a pokemon character. This needs to stay and be expanded. ALKIVAR™
02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Weren't so many? There are over six hundred I think. -- gakon5 03:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep please if there are only 600 atari games we can document them all Yuckfoo 04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for historical purposes. --Myles Long 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. Sango123 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sesame Street: Wild World
Hoax. No such game on Google searches for Sesame Street: Wild World (animal crossing does exist). Prod removed --Clappingsimon talk 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Hoax Betacommand 05:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above; I couldn't find any verification that anything with this title exists; nor does the article really clarify what this is supposed to be (I assume a video game). -- H·G (words/works) 05:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I think this is definitely a joke article. - Thorne N. Melcher 09:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HOAX. Thε Halo Θ 13:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a joke -- jokes have to show an attempt at 'funny.' This is hoax. Bustter 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Especially with creator removing AfD tag. Clear hoax. Morgan Wick 01:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete, then redirect. Sango123 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Holding Pattern
No evidence this is a notable piece of software. An unconfirmed award from download.com doesn't assert notability. A search for holding pattern there does not turn up this software or its award. No mention of the award on the official site.--Crossmr 06:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete then redirect to Holding (aviation). Oh, and I suspect the award refers to CNET's rating of the screensaver as five stars, not a real award, per se. [8] --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 06:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect — As per Above Reedy Boy 20:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Holding (aviation). Very plausible search term. As is, it's just an advert. Morgan Wick 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was DELETE., WP is not a crystal ball --Madchester 10:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mission: Impossible IV
Rumours, indicate, has been said, considered? The MI films are successful and there will probably be another film but the same can be said about Scary Movie 5 and Final Destination 4 Pally01 11:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Invincible Ninja (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: New votes on the bottom, please. Morgan Wick 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the film is confirmed, recreate article. Until then, this shouldn't be here. Thε Halo Θ 12:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per The Halo. Confusing Manifestation 12:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Speculative. Ohconfucius 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A search on IMDb yields no hits, meaning that the movie isn't even tenatively announced or planned. - Thorne N. Melcher 00:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per everyone else. Morgan Wick 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I've seen many 'future films' with good citation, (i watch and help on a few, in fact) but this one lacks any citation or sourcing at all.ThuranX 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The author has been creating several articles concerning fake sequels to Will Smith movies. --Merope 14:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Shouldn't get people's hopes up until there's word from a reputable source… preferably Cruise himself.Johann Schlinker 23:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sexual Freedom League
This bears all the hallmarks of vanispamcruftisdement. See how many times you find User:Sam Sloan's name in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as WP:VSCA. Thε Halo Θ 12:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Article was started by banned user Amorrow using the sock pinktulip. [21]. Only one other editors (Sloan) has made significant content edits. FloNight talk 13:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Definately vanity, but I am not conveinced either way wether it is notable. Google doesn't bring up a huge amount of results, but that may not mean much. 13:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (apparently I forgot to sign this: so ViridaeTalk 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC))
- Strong Keep I'm 57 years old, was somewhat involved in counter-culture movements (like everybody else was) in 1966 forward, and the Sexual Freedom League was pretty well-known 'back in the day.' I found the article as it is enlightening, no doubt it could be improved. Margo St. James was also known as "the Realist nun," something to do with a prank performed with the assistance of The Realist's editor Paul Krassner. The SFL may indeed have existed on the "fringe" of notability, but in the mid-sixties many things later subsumed to the mainstream -- all of the 'counter-culture' that came into its own by 1970 -- was 'non-notable.' SFL did, if my memory may be trusted, score frequent mention in Krassner's (now) well-respected publication (I was an avid reader). 40 years after its peak, 500+ hits in Google does not seem shabby. Lack of contributors is easily explained -- many lifetyle casualties in that era. Records like this are rare and historically valuable, though difficult to source. Sam Sloan lived in a time of historical nexus, characterized by conflicts of old and new, something similar was portrayed in Milos Forman's The People vs. Larry Flynt. I don't think the occurence of his name is a problem. Bustter 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- addendum- Morgan Wick: Not a sock, and will provide my address and phone if you like. Sloan and SLF founder J. Poland did put out a book, referenced in the article, its out of print. Calton - Archives of the SLF are curated here: [[22]] To everyone interested, its funny how much of the fringe culture stuff just slips away from us. "The Realist Nun" was a well-known prank of its time, in my circle, anyway -- zero hits in Google, but Google groups offers three hits, ranging from 1995 to one a couple of weeks ago. Bustter 10:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Bustter - Paulus89 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. Keep, per emerging consensus. Lack of G-hits is my main concern, and I still have some doubt as to whether Bustter and/or Sam Sloan may be socks, but am still assuming good faith for now. If it's as notable as Bustter claims, it may warrant an article, but how much content can it retain while remaining verifiable? Maybe Sam Sloan or others could write a book about this and others like it that can then be cited as a source in an NPOV article. Could someone track down "Krassner's (now) well-respected publication"? Morgan Wick 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Realist is a recently-created stub, but its editor-publisher Paul Krassner has been wiki'ed since 2003, there's more info about The Realist there. Though the last issue was in 2001, Krassner stopped putting it out regularly in 1967, when he discovered LSD. Or you can try contacting Krassner through his [website], where you can also read about Robert Anton Wilson's recent trip to his deathbed (and back). Better hurry, because Wilson's Ebay auction is limited to 3 days. Bustter 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Tentative keep. At first reading, all the references seem genuine and plausible, even the obvious mistakes ("Sproul Hall" being the name of UC Berkeley's administrative building and an often-used campus shorthand for campus administrators). A fair number of hits in Google Books [23] and Google Scholar [24]. And WorldCat confirms the book reference The Records of the San Francisco Sexual Freedom League [25]: there's even a copy at the Bodleian Library in Oxford [26]. Verification or actual notability may or may not be a problem, but the group existed. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as verified by Calton. A search by me came up with a reference in the Nation dating from 1967. It was a shortlived organisation but was of some significance in the 1960s US counterculture. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a little bit of searching around proves enough evidence [27] for me that it exists, and even seems worthy of an article. Any minor slight doubts I might have are wiped away by simply assuming a little bit of good faith as everybody should do. Mathmo 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. It is obviously not suitable as is but this is way premature for deciding to delete. The solution is normal wikipedia editing. Over time, I believe it will become usefu, encyclopedic material. I am dismayed at all the effort to delete that could be going into incremental improvements. If everyone here just improved one thing about the article, that would be so much better than all this casual thumbs up vs. thumbs down stuff. WAS 4.250 03:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was redirect to Tupac Shakur. Mangojuicetalk 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Euphanasia
This non-notable company (fails WP:CORP) article appears to exist simply to rehash the details of its founder's death. The contents are represented acceptably in his biography. Erechtheus 14:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tupac Shakur. Its founder's fame alone might be enough for notability if there were anything to say about it, but there doesn't seem to be. --Allen 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to either Euthanasia or Tupac Shakur. Oldelpaso 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The correct name is not Euthanasia. The article should be kept and added to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by License2Kill (talk • contribs) .
- Comment. Expand with what? If you know of something to add, the time to do so would be now. Erechtheus 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: This keep vote was from User:License2Kill, the article's creator. Oldelpaso's point was that it could be a valid search term for someone searching for Euthanasia. Right now, you haven't made any assertion that this is notable beyond its founder, or why this should be "kept and added to". Morgan Wick 02:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: It should be kept and added to because it was a company started by a big figure and there could be more to add on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by License2Kill (talk • contribs) .
- Redirect to Tupac Shakur per nom. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. Sango123 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fasterlouder.com.au
Fails WP:WEB, no evidence of notability. Alexa rank of 274,713. Jacek Kendysz 15:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Too bad we don't have a CSD for non-notable websites. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Well, I would hope not! This article asserts notability, so it would fall under no CSD. Morgan Wick 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Fails WP:WEB per nom. alphaChimp laudare 03:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was redirect. Sango123 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Verbal Fridge Dialogue
This same information appears on the V.F.D. Codes page. Its redundant and this article will never amount to more than a stub Clamster5 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to V.F.D. Codes page; reasonable search term. --Allen 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to V.F.D. Codes. In fact, you can be bold and make these sorts of articles into redirects when you encounter them, bypassing AfD entirely. Morgan Wick 02:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. Sango123 00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TRL Video Stats for Kelly Clarkson
TRL statistics aren't notable outside of discussion of singles' music videos (which should be on the song articles), and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Extraordinary Machine 17:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can imagine having the info collected together being useful to someone, but it certainly doesn't need its own page. So merge with Kelly Clarkson if the people who watch that article think it should be there, otherwise delete. --Allen 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, definitely not notable enough to deserve its own article. If merged, it should be merged to Kelly Clarkson discography. --musicpvm 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom - quite indiscriminate. Wickethewok 19:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into article of single, or Kelly Clarkson discography, or if all else fails, Delete. TRL stats for a specfic artist are not important enough to deserve it's own article.-- danntm T C 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fancruft, indiscriminate collection of information. If these people think this is interesting info for Kelly Clarkson they can add it to that article, I'm not going to endorse one way or another. Morgan Wick 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Cruft up the wazooo. 205.157.110.11 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There is already full info of Kelly Clarkson's TRL runs on http://www.absolutetrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=35291
- 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 was speedy delete under G4 The JPStalk to me 12:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thenomo
Article contains made-up/fictional information presented as fact. Article was previously deleted by speedy process but recreated by the original author FelineAvenger 19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Richhoncho 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (may qualify for Speedy under G4 if the recreated material is substantially the same). Yomangani 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax. Danny Lilithborne 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- The author of this article has also perpetrated other hoaxes throughout Wikipedia. This should have just been prod'ded. Danny Lilithborne 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Possibly speedily, per Yomangani. If not speedy, coulda been prodded. I have tagged it as a hoax. Morgan Wick 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was DELETE fails WP:MUSIC --Madchester 09:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crap cd
198 mostly unrelated Google results for "crap reloaded" (as Crap CD is almost unsearchable), no real assertion of notability or popularity beyond hyperbole; includes in-depth histories of the production minutiae of every released ... what, exactly? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks to be a bunch of drunken frat guys who filmed themselves and put it out on google video. Points for chutzpah, but basically it's, well, crap. Fan-1967 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Based on this lovely message from one of the authors on my talk page, it appears they may not be old enough to be frat guys. Fan-1967 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Interesting, in the picture they look awfully old for five-year-olds.
;)--Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting, in the picture they look awfully old for five-year-olds.
- Delete per nom. Methinks they're still unknown, rather than notable. BigHaz 22:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. --Kjetil_r 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Reinforced by repeated removal of AfD notice. Morgan Wick 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Worthless and pitiable vanity. Postdlf 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Fan-1967. Crap CD is crap. The people who made the article and the video are very stupid. Non-notable, worthless, non-Wikipedia like, in bad shape, should I go on? --S-man 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please remember WP:CIVIL. Morgan Wick 22:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Yamla 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You Won't Win! Crap CD Will beat you. this is a revoultion, and you are stopping progress! stop being such nerds! lighten up and make sure that the work of art and genius which is "Crap CD" will stay on this FREE and OPEN encyclopedia for ever. i bet none off you have even cared to watch the movies and realize what is being discussed here. I promise that if you watch the movies, you will beg for forgivness from us. And all you people, stop worrying about getting your frickin special "stars of deletion" or whatever other crappy merrit-badges they give out here and GET A LIFE!!! Travel the world, meet some girls, make some movies, get in touch with your inner souls or something, i dont give a crap, just ease off this wikipedia stuff for a while and let the revolution which is Crap CD be. maybe we'll send you guys T-shirts if your nice.
Crap CD is Better Than YOU!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raanan3000 (talk • contribs).
- I dunno, when it comes to the choice of either contributing constructively to Wikipedia, or making endless and repetitive videos of karoake with my drunk male friends for which I then obsessively creep around Wikipedia to promote it in typo-ridden screeds, I think I've made the right choice. Postdlf 01:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note: Referring to Raanan3000, this is a long-dormant account with one edit to the sandbox until this past Sunday, with edits primarily to this article and Pornography, where he removed an image marked "DON'T REMOVE WITHOUT DISCUSSION" without discussion, removed comments from the talk page, left the aforementioned "mean man" comment on a user talk page, and has recently resorted to vandalizing user pages. He has now been blocked. Our concern is not that it's not good, but that it's not notable, and the Google results don't pan out. In addition to the results cited in nom, ""Baruch Rosenstein" gets 318 G-hits. "Yoel Rosby" gets 37, nine unique. Morgan Wick 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Resorting to personal attacks will not convince people to change their mind. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. With regards to the hopes that it can be improved, deletion of an article by AfD due to it being unsourced does not prejudice creation of a sourced one, and as this article is two very short paragraphs and a list of works I doubt I'd even need to restore the content into userspace for anyone interested in doing that (though if anyone asks, I obviously will). --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gracia Fay Ellwood
Lots of unsourced passive-voice claims of notability here ("considered an expert" -- by who?), but only 141 unique Ghits. Looks nonnotable to me. NawlinWiki 22:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep in the hopes it may be improved. BTW, I got like 9,000 google hits? Rangek 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of verifiable sourcing and substantive detail means that the subject's vague claims to fame/expertise currently fail WP:PROF Bwithh 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Created by anon in days before Seigenthaler-gate. Contact may be impossible. Agree with Bwithh. Morgan Wick 02:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Author of 4 books (Good News From Tolkiens Middle Earth, Psychic Visits To the Past, The Uttermost Deep: The Challenge of Painful Near-Death Experiences, In a Faraway Galaxy [with Lee Vibber & Doris Robin] ). These are all on Google - admittedly with fairly small publishers. Also a few scholarly articles (use Google Scholar) primarily on Evil and Austen. Dlyons493 Talk 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - there are a lot of "Tolkien experts" out there. There is also Category:Tolkien_studies that would encompass this sort of thing. Could someone who knows about notability discuss things over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth to help decide where the line should be drawn? There are certainly more widely known and published authors and scholars and journals that would, in my opinion, be more deserving of articles than Ms Ellwood (for example, Verlyn Flieger, the journal Tolkien Studies, and so forth). On the other hand, I had never heard of Ms Ellwood before, and I am grateful to Wikipedia for drawing her to my attention. Would it contravene some ethics code if I kept a copy of this article in my user space so that I can add her to a list of Tolkien fandom "people" in future? Either here or at another wiki, if that kind of subject material is too specialist for Wikipedia. Carcharoth 08:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elbert Stannard
Deletion nomination Arrrr me hearties. Gather ye round for a spine-chilling, rum-sodden, hell-bound sailor's tale of long ago - when ships were ships and men were... men - that's all about nautical mystery and skulduggerous murder most foul. 'Tis the tale of "Old But Nutmegger" himself, Capt'n Elbert Stannard, the champion sailing "contributor" to the astounding exploits of the doughty folk of the Connecticut sailing community. The circumstances were said to be... aye, suspicious. And arrrr... indeed,the body was never found. 'Tis truly uncanny. Aye, arrrr.... a horrible and salty crime which confounds all human reason even after maybe hundreds of years, maybe not... no-one really knows... the records are long lost to Davy Jones' Locker, so far as this seadog knows. The only clue is the fine ye olde bed & breakfast country inn which bears the Cap'n Stannard's accursed name!! Can YE SOLVE THE MYSTERY?!?!? (Paging whoever the Jessica Fletcher of the 19th-or-whatever century was... er... using whatever the equivalent of paging was back then. Maybe actual page-boys). Arrrr... Aye.... Anyway fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BIO. Bwithh 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete seems to fail WP:BIO. Rangek 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Arr, there be a piddling 46 G-hits. Cap'n Morgan Wick 02:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom (more or less). Dlyons493 Talk 02:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 46 seems to fail WP:BIO Ohconfucius 13:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
