Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 11

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. TigerShark 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hatbag

This is a contested PROD. I tagged it for PROD because it's a webcomic that doesn't assert notability. Basically, the article doesn't tell us why we should care or why Wikipedia should have an article on it when it's already on the web. Erik the Rude 01:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Pokémon test. I can't find any claims of notability either. Cheers --Starionwolf 01:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 614 hits on Google, most not relating to the said webcomic. nn. yea. Adambiswanger1 01:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. DVD+ R/W 01:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no notability whatsoever. SubSeven 02:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete concur with the above. Gwernol 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks much better than many other AfD candidates but lacks notability. The author get a B for making a good-looking stub, but it needs more encyclopedic merit to last. Maybe in a year if it gets more Internet readership. Interlingua 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat 03:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable —Mets501 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have copied this article to Comixpedia: Comixpedia:Hatbag. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nn -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, has been expanded with more detail and better organization. Pumpkinshirt 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been improved and makes claims of notability now. Ace of Sevens 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There's a version of the page at Comixpedia, but it's older than this one. If the closing admin could transwiki the latest version there, that'd be helpful. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. I can't find any claims to notability or any sources other than the website. Eluchil404 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been improved. sirshrek 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:ENC - Hahnchen 11:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I understand the early votes to delete the initial stub-like entry that I posted, and I've worked to correct those issues.

Since then, it looks like the votes have been more divided, but, since I'm not entirely sure how the final decision is made, I wanted to respond to some of the issues. Please forgive any wiki-ignorance ("wikignorance"?) I may be displaying: With all due respect to the person who took the time to write a five-letter argument for deletion without even specifying the relevant points, none of the reasons on that page seem to be non-subjective reasons for deletion. 1) Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information -- Basically, as I understand it, this is the notability argument, which has been referenced before. First, Wikipedia does include entries about webcomics, which means that at this point any decision about the notability of any given webcomic is purely subjective. There does not appear to be any hard and fast rule as to what makes one webcomic notable and another not. Second, I believe that the inclusion of the information about the strip's "Hippie and the Black Guy" origins do add notability to the article. While the initial relevance cited in the entry regarding its controversial nature at UM may have been largely local in nature, Wikipedia includes numerous entries that are largely local in their relevance, and it also informs the current webcomic, which, by nature of being a webcomic, is not geographically limited. Further, regarding the reference to the Google count, "Hippie and the Black Guy" had much larger presence on the web at the time, including being named in top humor site on the web lists and being reviewed by Excite.com Reviews, but, as is to be expected, many of these lists and materials created a decade ago are not online. (Which I felt meant they should not be included in the entry, but does not mean that they should not be taken into consideration in regards to notability.) Arguably, the strip might have been a better candidate for an entry at that time, but obviously the fact that it predates Wikipedia by six years would preclude that. In fact, the fact that the webcomic has been online continuously for 11 years is arguably somewhat notable (though I'm saying that it just one factor in its notability -- I'm not arguing that in itself is enough).

2) Wikipedia is not for uncited material -- Granted, the entry does not include a references section; but many, many Wikipedia entries do not. In addition to the obvious citation to the Hatbag homepage, the article also refers to the three collections, which informed the entry; The Daily Mississippian, which published materials about the comic; and Web sites which reviewed the strip.

3) Wikipedia is not a place to publish your point of view -- The entry cites both positive and critical views of the webcomic.

4) Wikipedia is not a place to publish your new ideas -- If this "rule" is meant to be relevant to the Hatbag entry, the only connection I can see is regards to citation, which I addressed under point two.

5) Wikipedia is not censored -- This is why it would have been nice if the five-letter voter had explained his reasoning. I don't see any way in which this "rule" applies in this case; so am assuming it does not.

6) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- Ditto.

7) Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Ditto, other than that I hopes that means that when the time comes for a decision on the article, those who make the decision will consider these factors and judge objectively.

8) Wikipedia is not a blog service -- Ditto five and six.

9) Wikipedia is not a message board -- Again, ditto.

10) Wikipedia is not a free advertising space -- I was about to say ditto, but would note that this entry is not simply a brief note about Hatbag, with the additions made in response to early "delete" votes, it is now the single most definitive resource on the strip, as befits Wikipedia. It combines information from a variety of sources into an article more informative than anything anywhere else.

I hope this addresses the issues that have been raised about this entry. Thank you for your consideration. Pumpkinshirt 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, there are hard and fast rules for what makes a webcomic notable. WP:WEB is where you can review the criteria. It should also be noted that creating articles about yourself and/or your own exploits is strongly discouraged as per the WP:AUTO guideline. SubSeven 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for pointing that out. While those rules do not necessarily seem to be universally applied, by those rules, then, yes, as noted above, the entry does meet the qualifications for notability on the basis of newspaper coverage.

Also, the entry covers not only the web comic, but also its print predecessor, which would not fall under the WP:WEB guidelines.

And, yes, I was unaware of WP:AUTO when I started the entry, and did not realize I was committing a faux pas. That misstep taken, however, the policy does not appear, in and of itself, to be grounds for deletion, it just frequently leads to violation of other rules which are. Thus far, there seem to have been no allegations of violations of those rules, but, if any problems are cited, I will be glad to correct them. Thanks for the feedback.Pumpkinshirt 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I apologise for not taking time in explaining my vote. I don't use the WP:ENC argument normally, but I like the page and it's straight forward. But my general point is, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, I don't think an encyclopedia should include an entry on Hatbag. Every webcomic has origins, it doesn't make it a notable entity. - Hahnchen 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - That just seems very subjective. Wikipedia already includes entries on comic strips, so one can't make the argument that comics strips don't belong in Wikipedia. Certainly, Hatbag probably won't make it into Britanicca or World Book anytime soon, but if Wikipedia limited itself to things that would, it would be, well, Britanicca or World Book. As it is, there are many things on Wikipedia that are probably not in many other encyclopedias -- I doubt, for example, that Britanicca has an entry on Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend, which you do seem to believe belongs in an encyclopedia, or that World Book has much to say about SiN Episodes. 68.62.201.74 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It is not subjective. The notability guidelines for web content have been linked here repeatedly. SubSeven 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Indeed. And had I been talking about the notability policies, that would be a relevant point. Perhaps I could have been more clear -- I was responding to the statement "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, I don't think an encyclopedia should include an entry on ..." and, regardless of what replaces the ellipsis, that is a subjective statement. It is also one that is obviously belied by any number of Wikipedia entries that would not appear in any traditional general-interest encyclopedia. 68.62.201.74 01:02, 17 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Jordan

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Possible vanity or advertising. Unfortunately, it asserts notability. He has an IMDb profile showing that he played a zombie in one horror movie. Erik the Rude 01:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete / Delete. The IMDb link merely shows that he was an extra in some movie. It's hardly a sign of notability. Seems like a clear case of vanity. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Zombies deleted my prom date NawlinWiki 01:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 02:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Last Rites of the Deleted Trailer. ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete: I have seen one of the movies that Craig Jordan is in and it is a solid B-movie spectacular. Way better than calculus. Myrand4 10:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end of them. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:31,

User has four edits, two on this afd and 2 on the afds talk page. Also the user account was made on 02:10, 11 June 2006. Likely sock.--Andeh 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete before it eats my brains. Agent 86 02:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 03:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. It sounds like a mix of a vanity site, resume and some gentle ribbing by his friends. None of this makes for notability. Interlingua 03:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I like how the editor assumes that the fact that the actor studied Stanislavski is somehow notable. They even added a link to "Stonislavsky"'s bio. Dancter 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 04:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete if a lingering one. Fails WP:BIO but at least attempts to assert notability. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete - Craig Jordan is a very talented actor, and has a promising future. I have seen many of his plays in New York, and can personally attest to his wonderful musical and terpsichorean abilities. - --Ref32278 06:13, 11 June 2006(UTC)

User has 5 edits, 4 on this AFD and 1 on the articles talk page. The user account was created on 06:03, 11 June 2006 Ref32278. Likely sock.--Andeh 16:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do Delete per the voices in my head --- Zombie who is pretending to be --- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete: This entry simply summarizes the accomplishments of a young actor to date. There are currently many entries on Wikipedia that are less deserving than this.--Palguy 14:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User has 6 edits all on this AFD, account was created on 14:25, 11 June 2006. Likely sock.--Andeh 16:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete vanity, hoax, everything not for WP —Mets501 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom and —Mets501.--Andeh 16:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone has voted Delete or Speedy delete apart from the likely sockpuppets.--Andeh 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy zombified delete as vanity. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It reads like a badly written resume and appears to represent the little work of a "budding" actor, so fails WP:BIO... Non notable actor in non-notable parts of non-notable movies. doktorb | words 18:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for reasons stated above. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. DVD+ R/W 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very notable! Just kidding, delete. Sorry, this one was just such an obvious delete that i got bored. ENpeeOHvee 03:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No birth year given? Dubious. -- Omicronpersei8 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. i thought everyone here would be mad judicious. --alm8319 10:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet. New user, only edits are to this article. Similiar to the others, this one doesn't seem to know how to sign with ~~~~. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do No Delete: Unlikely sock puppets - It may be that those who can attest to Craig Jordan's notability have better things to do than edit Wikipedia articles. Judging by the quality of arguments made, the "Do Not Deletes" win hands down. I would trust the opinion of someone who has edited only a handful of articles over someone who has edited thousands (a person who clearly has lost touch of reality).TeddDD 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now it's getting too far. I'm going to put these puppets on the admin notice board. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:16, 16 June 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 of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solstice Coil

Nonnotable unsigned band (though I like the name of their self-produced album) NawlinWiki 01:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The band may meet this WP:BAND requirement: Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)., per this statement: "The album received positive reviews from various magazines, printed and online. It was named album of the month on the German site Babyblaue and the Brazilian site "Progressive Rock and Progressive Metal E-Zine" for December, 2005. ". Adambiswanger1 01:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First of all, this article is just a blatant advertisement. With that said, I agree with Adam's assessment of WP:MUSIC per above; however, there's no assertion that the magazines in which the band was mentioned are notable. "progressive rock and progressive metal e-zine" gets only 11 total Google hits; "babyblaue" gets 207,000, which is a huge number, except that only THIRTY of these are unique hits. Combined with the fact that neither of these sites have WP articles (babyblaue doesn't have a page on the German WP, either), I'm convinced that these web sites/magazines are completely trivial. There are no other claims of notability for the band (aside from saying how amazing and original they are). For full disclosure, "Solstice Coil" does get 18,100 total and 263 unique Google hits, but I doubt there's even room for expansion in this article to make it pass WP:MUSIC. -- Kicking222 02:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment babyblaue-seiten.de seems to be a repository of online reviews that sprung from a mail list. It doesn't look all bad but if that's the best you can offer in your favor then chances are you got both feet stuck in the muck of non-notability. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Add German wiki entry ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but it's a close call. They're certainly not famous but the author did a good job of showing it was more than just an ad. But the mentions fail to meet the "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" criterion. Maybe in another year? Interlingua 03:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, barely fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat 04:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I did some editing and removed the advertisement. They are fairly known within the Israeli alternative\progressive community. Especially since that time where they did Radiohead covers. Their site mentiones more press sources, including ynet.co.il - one of Israel's largest online news sites , "In the Camp" - Israel's defense forces weekly paper and some other, mostly non Israeli mentiones in prog-rock oriented media. Passes WP:BAND, but barely.

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. Ian13/talk 16:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional films in Seinfeld

This is trivia rather than encyclopedic content. It concerns fictional works within an already fictional work. I can completely understand having an article on Seinfeld, but this seems rather unimportant to a general encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 01:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Strong Keep. I created the article and just added a list of sixteen additional fictional films referenced. The presence of these films is a running gag in the show, and several of the films (particularly Rochelle, Rochelle) become a part of multiple plots. Much less than this has been included in the past. Dylan 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Upgraded my vote to "strong keep" after substantially improving the article to be more comprehensive. Dylan 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This information was combined from several articles on each individual fictional film. Having separate articles for detailed areas of a TV show is not uncommon. See Springfield (The Simpsons), Notable guest stars of ER (TV series), Newman (Seinfeld). These movies are not any more fictional than the characters themselves, and some of them figure prominently in the plotlines (Rochelle, Rochelle). Also, the information itself is fine. Adambiswanger1 01:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Adambiswanger1. Irongargoyle 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I added the lyrics for Rochelle Rochelle. This is exactly the kind of encyclopedic, obscure information that makes wikipedia great. Seinfeld is a treasure trove for trivia, and this page is a great example! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrstephengross (talk • contribs) 22:23, June 10, 2006 (EDT).

Users first edit was the one above, and has two other edits on the article itself. Account was created on 03:21, 11 June 2006. Likely sock.--Andeh 16:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Listcruft, fancruft, whichever you want to call it. I would disagree that this article shares any parallel with Springfield (The Simpsons), Notable guest stars of ER (TV series), or Newman (Seinfeld). If this were an article on Seinfeld guest stars, or a notable Seinfeld character, then there'd be a parallel. Agent 86 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentFrom Wikipedia:Fancruft
    • "As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles." Think about what that says. Then vote. Adambiswanger1 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I tend to agree, but you might want to change your last statement to "then discuss" as opposed to "then vote." We don't vote on Wikipedia, as "voting is evil." We discuss (I've been pwned over such terminology in the past). Oh yea, Weak Keep, per your citation. youngamerican (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Fancruft, which is not policy, and continues on to say, "Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic..." Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. I hope Adambiswanger1 meant no offense by what could be construed to be a passive-agressive slight. Agent 86 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Agent. My statement was in no way intended to be passive-aggressive or incivil--only concise. If you wish to stand by your accusation I should kindly like to know why. Also, please Assume Good Faith when monitoring the tone of other editors. Thanks. But, back to the argument itself: Admittedly, Wikipedia:Fancruft is not an official policy. But, there is also no official policy against it. The essay, which is on official Wikipedia namespace, suggests that most deleted "fancruft" articles are poorly written. This one is certainly not. It also indicates that the deletion of articles such as this is controversial, and "many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles." Adambiswanger1 04:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a clarifiaction that was meant to show that no slight was meant, but it got deleted somehow. Scroll back through the edit history [11]. youngamerican (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Youngamerican, I had hoped to make it clear in my comment that my remarks were in relation to what Adambiswanger1 had written, not you. Nevertheless, I should make it emphatically clear that I am not offended in any way by any of the editors in this thread and I am trusting that the comment by Adambiswanger1 was meant in good faith.Agent 86 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I missread due to tabbing, but your comment was crystal clear. I need to get some sleep. youngamerican (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Those might not have been the best examples, but I'd say that this article DEFINITELY has similarities with List of products in The Simpsons, Lisa's sax solo gags on The Simpsons, List of vehicles in The Simpsons, Media in The Simpsons, and Chalkboard gag. Dylan 03:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, while this would be a great and interesting topic for a fansite, it is not encyclopedic (even if other encyclopedias had unlimited space, they would not even approach this much detail). Ideally there would be a single article for the entire show. -- Kjkolb 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Seinfeld connection confers considerable notability. The author did much more than merely list facts but actually developed the information on on fictional film and cross-referenced the materail. I could very easily want to find this kind of information and believe that the number of other possible users is high enough to warrant keeping it. As a stub, it's a very good start, much stronger than many others. Interlingua 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need to cover every single minor detail in a TV series, no matter how famous the series is. Wikipedia does not aim for exhaustive coverage of a given topic. JoaoRicardo^talk 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JoaoRicardo. --Coredesat 04:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why shouldn't we aim for exhaustive coverage of a given topic if that topic is as interesting and culturally significant as Seinfeld? Instead of deleting pages like these, we should try to expand our coverage of the more "scholarly" subjects (Shakespeare, Chaucer, etc) to include as much detail. Plus, Prognosis Negative is arguably more well-known than, say, Walshville, Illinois... :) Zagalejo 04:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hey a town smaller than mine! :D I'm from Winslow, Arkansas. 399 is so sad :( Anyways, Strong keep Interesting and well written.
• Because we are trying to make an encyclopedia. And who said Seinfeld is "interesting and culturally significant"? Where? When? For how long? Sorry, not many Seinfeld fans where I live. Always good to get off the USA-centric POV. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Called the greatest show of all time by TV Guide, number one in the Nielsen ratings for several seasons, etc., etc. Dylan 00:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Which are both restricted to the USA as far as I can tell. (I actually had to look up "Nielsen ratings" in Wikipedia, because I've never heard of it.) It just goes to prove my point: Seinfeld may be the greatest TV series in the USA, but it doesn't mean the whole world should know about it. I thought we were trying to build a world encyclopedia, not a compendium of American pop culture. JoaoRicardo^talk 00:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Point taken, but very few articles here are well-known by everyone. I don't see why the geographical sphere of influence of Seinfeld really matters; important is important. I'm not hammering for the deletion of Only Fools and Horses just because it's not broadcast in my country. It's still very popular and important, and I would hardly fault British editors for writing "crufty" articles about it analogous to this one. Dylan 01:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep who could ever forget Rochelle, Rochelle? Almost as notable as Tool Time, another show within a show. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Never heard of it. And yes, I've watched Seinfeld episodes. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'm of the opinion that fancruft should be transwikied to appropriate Wikia sites. (In this case it would be [12]). However I don't see this happening until more people realize that Wikia exists and should be a better place to look for pop culture material. So: weak keep Whitejay²⁵¹ 07:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think that separate articles about these films could be considered as cruft, but this well written article is far from it. Kevin 07:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is more then just the next version of the old dusty encyclopedias that everyone has sitting on their bookshelves. It trancends that, and allows for the exploring of not only the TV Show, but also the culture that this TV Show created. This article serves as the examples in everything that is good about Wikipedia. This site is the repository of information. Rather or not it's relevent is not for one or two people to decide, it's relivence is decided by the fact that it has embedded itself into our culture. While I agree that we don't need fiction on every TV Show created, this is one of the most well known running jokes from a show that changed TV and Sitcoms, forever.ReignofJerm
• Strong delete, fancruft, listcruft and unencylopedic. Someone want to explain how a list of fictional film/theater in Seinfeld is notable enough for its own article? Really... if you want to document the tiny details of Seinfeld, then good luck to you, but you are in the wrong place. There is a Seinfeld wiki... take it there... in fact, take it anywhere but Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a good, verifyable article about something that completely fails to interest me. The point is that it's the quality of the article that wins here - a rubbish article on this subject would get scrubbed as cruft - Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a good quality, verifiable, article, about a notable TV show —Mets501 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because movie-going was a recurring theme on the show. --JChap 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons set forth by ReignofJerm. --BrownHornet21 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Motor - listcruft, fancruft, totally useless information - pm_shef 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we shouldn't be afraid to expand on minor aspects of relevant TV series--Aldux 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete gratuitous fancruft. Take it to the Seinfeld wiki as per Motor, but this is harmful to Wikipedia if the article stays here. Bwithh 22:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft. Reyk _YO! 23:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seinfeld was a seminal, pathbreaking show and this article covers an important aspect of its lore and comedy. Does real credit and adds valuable information to wikipedia. It should and must stay here. --JJay 00:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Motor Travis Wells 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yeah, it's crufty, but WP:CRUFT is not policy. Besides, I think that the sheer popularity of this show allows a little latitude. To respond to one of the above posters, sure it's U.S.-centric, but the huge number of viewers of Seinfeld make it objectively popular. The fact that it is so well written doesn't hurt, either. --Joelmills 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, WP:CRUFT isn't policy, but no original research is, and this article is one big piece of OR. - Motor (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How in the world is this original research? The entire bulk of the article is information learned from dialogue in the episodes, which is easily verifiable by reading a transcript from the show (available online) or by watching the episodes; when both information and quotations appear, their episodes are cited to ease such endeavors to verify it. There's absolutely no new synthesis of information or introduction of research, simply a repetition and summary of what was broadcast on television. Dylan 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If it is kept, it should me moved to [[List of fictional films in Seinfeld]]. JoaoRicardo^talk 00:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a well written article on a legitimate pop culture topic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidK93 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-12 06:42:28 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Motor; unencyclopedic (meet WP:NOT) original research (meet WP:NOR) is inappropriate content, however well written it might be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Which criteria, exactly, does this meet at WP:NOT and WP:NOR? I can't see for the life of me how it is original research (see my comment above to Motor). Dylan 12:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, where are the reliable sources to back up the contents of the article? Saying "I've watched the episodes and collected together a list of stuff from them", is original research. Note: don't bother linking to fan transcripts either... WP:RS. As for WP:NOT... Wikipedia is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" -- making a list of fictional theatre/film mention in Seinfeld is about a spurious as it gets. As I said before, there is a Seinfeld wiki to serve the needs of people who want to collect/catalogue all kinds of trivia about the show. Wikipedia isn't for that. This does not justify its own article here. - Motor (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:NOR: "...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged...This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The episodes are the primary sources for the series. How is watching the episodes and representing the information -- without analysis, etc. -- any different from reading a book about Abraham Lincoln and incorporating that information into his article, complete with citations? It's not. I feel like your opposition here is more against the medium (i.e. watching television) as somehow less reliable than others. It's still completely verifiable -- the episodes are cited; you can go and watch the episode yourself and verify the quotations or prove them wrong. Dylan 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment, even if anyone were to accept that watching every episode of a television show to collect and catalogue all the fictional films/theatres used is not OR (and I do not... so provide links to official scripts). You haven't answered the point about it basically being a "list or repository of loosely associated topics"... an indiscriminate collection of non-notable trivia. How is this material notable enough to justify an article? What is the problem with taking it where it belongs, to the Seinfeld wiki. - Motor (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Again, you want printed rather than broadcast material. I don't see why the former is acceptable when the latter is not. Look at the quote I provided above and explain to me how what I have done is not the collection and organization of information from existing primary sources. Insofar as WP:NOT is concerned, this is hardly parallel to the examples given there like "quotations, aphorisms, or persons." This kind of list-making in television and other fictional worlds has precedent in List of fictional revolutions and coups, List of Star Wars races, List of fictional humanoid species, List of extraterrestrials in fiction, List of fictional plants, List of neologisms on The Simpsons, List of Neon Genesis Evangelion topics, List of products in The Simpsons, Lisa's sax solo gags on The Simpsons, List of vehicles in The Simpsons, Media in The Simpsons, Chalkboard gag, or, of course, List of fictitious films. I grant that this article is generally more specific than these other articles, but that's simply because there's too much information here to let this remain a subection of List of fictitious films#Fictitious films from Seinfeld. I'd say that the presence of that last article is the a very strong argument in favor of keeping this one: this article is the exact same thing, but has been broken off because it is simply too big. Dylan 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment, For example: my new article is: there are four thousand books in my local library... I've counted them. This is a verifiable fact... all you have to do is go there and count them yourself. Naturally, this would be thrown out as OR. If the subject of this article is *notable*, then a reliable source has presumably already done the cataloguing and you are just citing the result. As far as I'm aware, this is not the case. As for the "precedent" set by the articles you listed... they have not set any precedent. This argument is trotted out whenever anyone AFDs an article with fans: that there are other articles like it (or worse). This is an unjustifiable argument given the way that Wikipedia works. We can only examine each article on its own merits. You are essentially claiming that "we" must AFD and delete other articles first. The fact remains that the subject of this article has no notablity in the wider world to justify it's own article. - Motor (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment A very poor analogy. Counting books is an act of research, and by coming up with 4,000, you are introducing information that was not previously available. What I did was "collect and organize" information that is broadcast and re-broadcast nationally in the U.S., meaning that the information was definitely already available. The fact that I took specific instances of the provided information is simply a part of the "collecting and organizing." Further, "you have to go down there and count them yourself" means that it's not verifiable because it takes an act of research to verify it. With the citations I provided, it does not take an act of research (e.g. counting), merely re-examing the primary source -- the same way you can verify that a college has 4,100 undergraduates by looking it up in a book and saying "Aha, there it is, he's right," you just need to "look up" in the episode that Elaine couldn't get tickets to Means to an End.
                
                I suppose in the end this comes down to a judgment call of whether this is a "list or repository of loosely associated topics." I submit that it is not, and it seems that you and I have nowhere else to go in our disagreement on this matter. I have clearly demonstrated that this is not original research -- you can ignore the policy statements at WP:NOR if you want, but the quotation I provided above states in no uncertain terms that what I did is prototypical source-based research and is certainly welcome in Wikipedia. Dylan 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment, there's nothing "poor" about it. It is exactly the same. You are generating new information (read the OR guidelines) on a non-notable subject. A trivial "list of" references with a theme. I repeat: this article is original research... just because you collected each individual reference from a verifiable source (DVDs presumably) does not change that. The process of compiling an aticle on this subject is OR. You need to find a reliable source that has already done this cataloguing. Even if you do that, you've still got the problem that it is not suitable for its own Wikipedia article (under WP:NOT), and that it has no notability outside of Seinfeld. - Motor (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Comment It's a bad analogy because it's totally unrelated. Identify for me the elements in this article that do not appear in the episodes of Seinfeld; if there are none, then it is impossible that I am "generating new information." This article does not make any new argument about the list of fictitious films as a whole, it merely catalogues them. I fail to see anywhere in WP:NOR that lists need to have already been categorized as such by an outside source.
                    
                    "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." What new ideas or arguments appear here? Dylan 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Comment, you created an article on a subject (fictional refs etc etc in Seinfeld) the specifics of which do not exist elsewhere as a reliable source. You then you went out and did research by checking every Seinfeld episode and documenting the occurances. It is 100% original research. If it is not original research, then whose research are you quoting here? The answer is: you did it yourself. We can dance around this subject all day... but the simple fact is, that this article is original research and should be deleted on that basis alone - and even if you were successful in confusing the issue enough to avoid deletion on the basis of OR, it violates WP:NOT. As I said right at the beginning of this... if you want to conduct such research, fine, no-one is stopping you. Just don't do it on Wikipedia because it violates one of the basic rules of the place. It's no good trying to reinterpret the rules and rules-lawyer in order to get around it. Just move it to a more suitable place, where the rules for inclusion are not those of an encyclopedia. - Motor (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • Comment WP:NOR clearly states that "film, video or photographs" are examples of primary sources. The guideline goes on to say, as Dylan pointed out, that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." So it's "research," yes, but not original research. Instead, it is research of a type that the guideline specifically encourages editors to engage in. --DavidK93 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                        • Comment, You haven't read my argument. The OR guidelines are talking about the encyclopedic cataloguing of notable subjects that already exist. The subject of this article did not -- at least, not in any reliably sourced form. "List of fictional/theatres etc etc" was created for this article. If you want to write an article on the television show Seinfeld (there is one, but play along), then you go out and collect all the reliably sourced information about the show and then write an article that is made up of other people's research, and cite them as sources in the article. Do not invent the subject of an article, and then do original research to fill it. If this article is not OR, then whose research is it citing? - Motor (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                          • Comment You continue to ask "whose research is it citing," which presumes right away that we have to cite a secondary source, which I am obviously not using. I am using a primary source. It really seems to me that you're the one confusing this issue: instead of pointing out exactly what passages of WP:NOR I'm violating here, you just keep repeating "this is original research" and not going any farther. Until you can say "WP:NOR says not to do this, and you did that," then you can't seriously expect me to just believe that I did original research.
                            
                            I see your argument in the sense that I had to be the one to think of creating an article called Fictional films in Seinfeld, but that's simply the nature of a list (the article should be moved to "List of fictional films in Seinfeld"). Look at List of films based on the Bible or countless others in Category:Lists of films. I'm not linking these to try an argument from precedent as I did earlier, only to show you that you're obviously the only one who has this unique interpretation of WP:NOR. No else thinks it's original research to list a bunch of films about the Bible; if they all independently profess to be about the Bible, then we put them together in a list. You still have not fulfilled my request to point out which particular passage of WP:NOR states that we can't make lists of this type -- probably because it isn't considered original research. Dylan 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                            • Comment, that is the nature of a list -- no it is not. A list of films directed by Steven Speilberg is not original research since I can quote half a dozen books where I can obtain that list when OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH, and then I used their research to make an article citing them as a source. Whether that list suitable for Wikipedia is a further argument... but it is not original research. This article, on the other hand, is very definitely orginal research... because you created the subject and did the research yourself to fill it. I have repeatedly explained this, and you repeatedly miss the point. You give an example of a list of films about the Bible -- where did the research for that list come from? If it came from the writer of the article... then it is original research. If it came from a book... from research done by someone else... then it is not OR. - Motor (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                              • Comment I'm not going to rehash the same point any more: WP:NOR does not prohibit what you are describing. Rather, you seem to have a novel interpretation of the original research policy that no one else seems to share (for example: of the ten "delete" votes so far, only two mention original research: yours and the one by Angus McLellan who dubbed it "per Motor." In fact, your original vote didn't even mention original research, it appeared as an objection in later comments). Your interpreation would delete the great majority of material at Category:Dynamic lists, lists to which "revisions and additions are welcome," meaning that they aren't already listed at some exterior source as belonging to that list, they just need to verifiably meet the criteria. Should this type of material qualify as original research, I should think that one of the other 1,602,256 editors would have pointed it out by now and deleted it straightaway.
                                
                                We seem to be talking past each other: I can't understand why you don't see it my way, and I'm guessing that you feel likewise. This argument is sapping my time and energy, and I think it's time to call it to an end. Feel free to take the last word, but I've made my points several times and I am done repeating them. Dylan 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                              • Comment - I will thanks... since you have yet again failed to address the problem. My interpretation is not novel. You have invented your own (seemingly spurious) subject and then done your own research by watching the episodes. That is original research and goes against Wikipedia policy. Plain and simple. How about this: List of episodes in which George sneezes? Go ahead... I'm sure you'll be able to find a way to justify that one too. The rest of your post is yet more "if X hasn't been deleted, why should this be?". If it makes you feel better... I don't actually expect this article to be deleted for a couple of reasons a) despite the claims made about the AFD process, it is actually a vote. AFDs are closed as "keep" all the time on the basis of a vote tally and not the discussion. b) You solicted votes (check your contributions). - Motor (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                              • Comment I disagree with your "list of films directed by Steven Speilberg" example. It's true that there are "half a dozen books where [one] can obtain that list," but any such book is a secondary source. If you consulted such a book, you would presumably find that they have cited the movie itself. They learned that a given film was directed by Steven Spielberg because they saw it in the credits of the film, the primary source. Dylan is correct that you seem to be demanding that all sources be secondary sources, which is not consistent with WP:NOR. --DavidK93 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                                • Comment, I am not demanding that all sources be secondary (but Wikipedia generally prefers them)... what I am saying is that the very subject of this article was invented by Dylan, and then researched by him. This is original research in a way that many lists are not. It is also against WP:NOT, since it is a list with a spurious theme... it is an indiscriminate collection of cruft... and should be deleted on both counts. - Motor (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                                  • Comment I think you are looking at the letter of the law, in this case the WP:NOT, and not he spirit of the law. The WP:NOT was created so that we don't have individuals who call themselves "authorities" on a subject giving un-factual information. For instance, I start an article about Nuclear Fusion because I think it has something to do with an atom and splitting it, and I present that information as factual. That is where the WP:NOT comes into play, as that would not be appropriate. But the rule wasn't put into place to stifle research. The very idea that someone would do research is inherit in creating an article. It's the very nature of Wiki. But, as I said earlier (or later, I don't know where this falls in relation to my other comments), but Wiki is constantly evolving. And while I agree with you Motor, as this isn't what would be considered a subject that belongs in an encyclopedia, it is that fact that make it an appropriate subject for Wiki. It is one of the best things about this site, the fact that it contains so much information on such a wide verity of subjects. I appreciate how Dylan gathered this information and made a page that is easy to understand and navigate. To delete his work, because it falls within the "gray" area of what is Original Research or what is encyclopedic in nature, would only stifle the creativity that Wiki is based off. In fact, this discussion is another great thing about Wiki, the fact that so many people with so many different backgrounds and opinons have come together to create a site that one day could rival Google.Reignofjerm 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Comment The simple fact that this article and it's deletion sparks such discussion shows exactly how much the show has embedded itself into our lives. Their are certain pop culture facts that should be cataloged, just like the Oxford Dictionary in 2003 added hip-hop words like "bling-bling" and "jiggy" to it's list of definitions to keep up with the chaging culture in America. Seinfeld is one of the few shows (MASH, 60 Minutes) that changed the way we look at TV, and as such, rather or not you agree with it's import, should be enough to warrent keeping such an article. Also, I think that Wikipedia re-writes itself constantly, and has become an important repository for information. To delete an article that walks the fine line between Wiki's deletion policy would be a step back and not a step forward. Just as IMDB has Trivia on it's site for each movie. They realize that if you are to call yourself a true source of data on a subject, you should have all the data you possible can get on said subject.Reignofjerm 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with policies for that purpose. It is specifically *not* just a collection of information and a dumping ground for spurious lists of trivia that are original research. - Motor (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, That is very slippery argument Motor. Princeton University defines an enclyclopedia as "....a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty." Yes, "...the entire range of human knowledge". No one is suggesting turning Wiki into a "dumping ground" for usless information. But making that argument only goes to limit the boundaries of Wiki. Who is to call information useless? I stumbled upon this article and made an edit a couple of months ago because Wiki has become the very first place I go whenever I need any kind of information. Also, to call a peice of information "spurious" just because there isn't another place on the internet that you can get that information is also limiting. Why can't Wiki be the first place this information is kept on the internet. There isn't a copy of my birth certificate on the internet, does that make my birth "spurious"? No, the fact that I'm alive shows that reasoning to be specious. Thus, arguring that an article be deleted just because the transcripts aren't available online is unreasonable.Reignofjerm 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, who is arguing that it should be deleted because there are no transcripts online? I'm arguing that it should be deleted because it is an invented subject that is a result of original research. On top of that, it violates WP:NOT. "Who is to call information useless?" -- no-one has said it is useless... just that it is OR, unencylopedic and WP:NOT. If you want the information, then take it to the Seinfeld wiki, with my complete and total blessing, but it does not belong here. - Motor (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Get OUT!!! (Strong Keep) I cannot hope to give adequate time to the above concerns, but I believe this belongs on Wikipedia given the fact that this information is verifiable, the page is not an indiscriminate list capable of infinite expansion, the information is of relevance outside the show in some cases such as Rochelle, Rochelle, and that similar articles exist for The Simpsons "(e.g. couch gag and chalkboard gag) and other television shows which are of obvious cultural significance. Jammo (SM247) 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I'm as against fancruftiness as the next editor (perhaps more so), but this is a neutral, well-written article that presents a notable example of a metafictional list. In fact, this is split from an article devoted to the topic: List of fictitious films. The organisation into lists of factual, verified items is certainly not Original research. The article could do with a better screen capture, however. --Leflyman^Talk 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Leflyman, who said it better than I could. BoojiBoy 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's too big to merge into an other article, and it's very well written. And considering the popularity of Seinfeld, I think it's encyclopedic enough. ENpeeOHvee 00:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of info here and it is too large to merge. CoolGuy 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep Strong Delete - While there is some precedent for an article like this on Wikipedia, it's a trend that should be curbed. Seinfeld has it's own Wiki for pointless (if somewhat interesting and comprehensive) information such as this. --relaxathon 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - this AfD has been like a strange erotic journey from Milan to Minsk. But why not rename it "Fictional films in Seinfeld"? It's much more than a list. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it's an annotated list, since it superficially covers many related subjects. JoaoRicardo^talk 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The page has strong encyclepedic content, parts of the Seinfeld universe, such as fictional films are very important to the show, and merging it would not be practical as the Seinfeld article is already very long. It must be kept as it is indeed notable and important information relating to one of the most popular shows ever. Cvene64 08:44, 16 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QHotels

Advertisement/link spam, as is clear from the history. The article was proposed for deletion but de-proposed by the article creator. Spacepotato 01:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant ad. DVD+ R/W 01:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DVD Adambiswanger1 01:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Andeh 01:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 01:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• QDelete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad, real estate blurb, not notable. Interlingua 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedify the deletion. Advertising. --Coredesat 04:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not make sufficient assertion of notability to pass WP:CORP Kevin 07:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --Starionwolf 00:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:59, 12 June 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 of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 11:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Give me liberty or give me death

See What Wikipedia Is Not. It states "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations...If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." The article is simply a quotation that would better fit at wikiquote.

• First off, this isn't a list of quotes, it's a single quote. But, with that said, I vote to transwiki to Wikiquote; however, I also vote to keep a summary of the speech and its importance at this name (on Wikipedia) with a link to the full speech at Wikiquote. -- Kicking222 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an article on the speech and the impact of the quote, but dump the full text. youngamerican (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is less said here about the impact of the speech than is given in Patrick Henry. Transwiki to Wikiquote if you must, but delete it here. Ted 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Youngamerican Adambiswanger1 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Transwiki to Wikiquote or Wikibooks (if the whole speech is going in). Otherwise, the notable single line "Give me liberty or give me death" is more than covered in Patrick Henry. Agent 86 02:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • comment All I want is for that fifth grader doing his history report to get some information when he searches for "Give me liberty or give me death". Adambiswanger1 03:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I could go for a redirect to Patrick Henry to pick up Googlers. youngamerican (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or redirect very notable line, and I'm not even American (surprised?). CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For anyone doubting the value of a redirect, Four score and seven years ago exists. Either way it shouldn't be deleted. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, transwiki or redirect to Patrick Henry. This is primary source material. -- Kjkolb 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --Coredesat 04:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as article about speech or redirect to Patrick Henry, but do not transwiki. If you do, use Wikisource, not Wikiquote. The text of the speech was first recorded in 1817, years after the fact, and even the most famous line may be apocryphal. Morgan Wick 04:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but remove the speech itself from the article. MaxSem 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (minus the full speech, of course) or redirect to Patrick Henry per above. BryanG^(talk) 06:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete this. --Neverborn 06:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patrick Henry and transwiki the quote. Kevin 07:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article about speech, or Redir if consensus is found to delete. I have removed the text of the speech. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Mentioned in the article on Patrick Henry and already extant on Wikiquote, this article is superfluous. A redirect to Patrick Henry might be in order, if required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article about speech, which is important enough for its own article. The fact that the quote itself may be apocryphal provides more fodder for an article. --JChap 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, worthwhile per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a very relevant quote, an article on the speech would be worthwhile--Aldux 16:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Not sure what's left after removing the speech that warrants its own entry and isn't better covered at Patrick Henry. ~ trialsanderrors 17:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per aeropagitica. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote... which is the whole point of Wikiquote Bwithh 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per aldux MarineCorps 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important speech should be covered by every general reference work, including wikipedia. --JJay 00:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aeropagitica. Give me something. --Starionwolf 00:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per aeropagitica and Bwithh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but redirect to Patrick Henry, and transwiki text to Wikisource --mtz206 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patrick Henry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 16 June 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 of the debate was merge to The Keys to the Kingdom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing (Keys to the Kingdom)

Is this at all notable outside the context of a 3 year old fantasy series? Considering that it appears this is all that can be said about this subject, it should be merged with the parent or deleted. Crossmr 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to The Keys to the Kingdom, where it belongs. It has no notability outside of that series of books. Ted 02:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ted Adambiswanger1 02:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ted Ydam 11:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above Emmett5 15:13, 11 June 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 of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Battlefield 1942 mods (second nomination)

Has been transwikied to Wikibooks. (Wikipedia is not a repository of external links)--Zxcvbnm 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because it has been transwikied.  :) --Starionwolf 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy Delete depending on whether CSD A5 applies when the transwiking did not occur as the result of a deletion (or other) debate. Morgan Wick 04:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Adambiswanger1 04:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Bwithh 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice intro that does a good job of explaining Battlefield 1942 mods + fine list. --JJay 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You don't understand, it's still here, just on Wikibooks.--Zxcvbnm 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Its still not on wikibooks yet. Bfelite 15:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with main Battlefield 1942 article. I don't really understand why it's been transwikied to Wikibooks. How does this fit the format of a book or textbook? --Adrift* 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or at the very worst merge. Contains dozens of highly notable games featured magazines, game sites, and thousands of google hits. Bfelite 14:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft and listcruft. -- Hirudo 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Gosh, why is Zxcvbnm so dedicated to delete all Bf1942-related articles? Is he a worker of some competing software company or something? //Halibutt 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's already been discussion about this a month ago. I would have preferred to see intervening dialogue on the article talk page rather than such another AfD after such a short time. It is a very popular game and it's a well compiled article. I don't see why Wiki can't accommodate it. Tyrenius 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for all reasons mentioned above. --W++ 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons outlined above; at least provide an alternative that makes sense, like merging. syphonbyte 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's exceptionally useful. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the list per WP:NOT a web directory. Where has it been transwikied to? Kusma (討論) 15:01, 16 June 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 of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curriehill Primary School

Primary school that doesn't exist anymore; no claim of historical notability NawlinWiki 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all primary schools, especially ones that do not assert notability. Note, not existing anymore is not a bar to inclusion - we don't only include current baseball players - why should we only include existing schools? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crazy (unless the primary school has some sort of notable prestige or an event or connection that would make it otherwise notable.) Adambiswanger1 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per CrazyRussian. --Coredesat 04:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 (no claims of notability) and possibly A1. Morgan Wick 04:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You either have no clue what the speedy deletion criteria are or that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (and thus don't know the regular deletion criteria since WP:NOT can be cited there), or you're trying to push a WP:POINT. Notability is arguably the number one cause of non-speedy deletions. In this case, it doesn't even claim to be notable, which is a speedy deletion criterion. I apologize if this was taken as a personal attack. Morgan Wick 05:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • A7 is only for people and groups of people, not for schools. Please review WP:CSD. But yeah, notability is what people use to make deletion decisions, and since Wikipedia is nothing more than the sum of what Wikipedians do..... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club can be stretched fairly broadly. A corporation or, here, school can be seen as a group of people, band, or club. Then again, bands and clubs can be seen as groups of people. Morgan Wick 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Most admins won't honor that reading. When I am promoted in a couple of days, I won't. Besides, what's the rush? You haven't got five days? lol... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MaxSem 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seeing at it is a stub and no longer exists, I don't see how it can be expanded with verifiable information. Kevin 09:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Schools that no longer exist are not inheirantly notable. Ydam 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It was notable before it closed so it is notable now. Piccadilly 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The suggestion that once a school closes it is no longer notable is laughable. Silensor 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable school. Golfcam 17:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, most schools are notable, wether they are historical or present. bbx 07:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. School articles are worth having. --Elonka 08:20, 15 June 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 of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winfield Reformed Church

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

The Board of Elders of The Winfield Reformed Church would like to request that this page be deleted. The page has been repeatedly used to spread lies fabricated to ruin the image and peace in the church. These lies are simply untrue and we would appreciate if this page were deleted and similar pages claiming to give information about The Winfield Reformed Church or of our pastor be deleted in the future. If you have any problems or questions, feel free to call the church and we would be happy to speak with you. Thank you. Clsechao 03:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This above nomination was placed on the orginal AfD page by accident. I'm not sure of the policies covering this sort of request for deletion. DarthVader 03:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. It is a very small church and the pastor's alleged abuses have not attracted enough attention in the media to be notable. -- Kjkolb 04:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete out of respect for the church. Not including it in Wikipedia will not change the world or cause any censorship issues. Adambiswanger1 04:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral because it's not a full-on attack page. We don't delete pages just because they have POV issues and some people don't understand the NPOV policy (and WP:NOR). If it's notable, it should have an article no matter what the church says. (Whether it is notable is another matter.) We still have a page on John Seigenthaler Sr., after all. Morgan Wick 04:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable anyway. --Metropolitan90 05:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the second time this article has come up for deletion. On the basis of the nomination alone, I'd lean keep or strong keep, but maybe that's not the point here. After reading the article, the church does not stand up as notable, so I agree with Kjkolb on the delete. —C.Fred (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. As a side note, I have removed the section attacking the pastor. The "evidence" was a foreign language message board post. Message board posts aren't reliable sources. BigDT 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for NN, though we don't normally honor such requests. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not particularly notable. Kevin 09:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It does have a long history, but does not otherwise appear to be notable. The allegations about the pastor do not appear to have received any coverage. --JChap 16:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Board of Elders have not met to request a delete and there should not be a delete because of negative but true information regarding a notable person and place in New York. californiaccc 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of evidence of notability. The history and discussion here make it obvious that people care. The nomination reason is garbage, but that is irrelevant. Now that we are looking at it, does it meet the standards we expect of an encyclopedia article? I sampled about 10 versions out of the last 100 edits in history - none cite any media or otherwise reliable sources except the church's own site and documents. The only assertion of notability was in the attack passage that BigDT appropriately removed. Without notability, it just isn't encyclopedic. GRBerry 02:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Notable place of worship for history it has but controversial pastor is not notable. noshiningman 13:20, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CricRss

Completing nomination by 211.30.53.196 (talk • contribs). Technical nomination only (no recommendation from me). DarthVader 03:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I think they should pay Wikipedia if they want to place an ad. - Richardcavell 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A "relatively unknown" website (per the article) which doesn't even have its own domain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability is entirely too limited ju66l3r 05:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not establishing notability is one thing, but asserting lack of notability puts it straight in the trash bin. Opabinia regalis 05:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - relatively unknown says it all. Kevin 09:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - relatively unknown - advert, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:59, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Harrington, Mexican-American War Veteran

Non-notable person, in my opinion. The speedy delete was contested due to notability of living to 101. Medtopic 03:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 04:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Everyone has a great grandpa William---not notable enough Adambiswanger1 04:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kevin 09:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Not notable and wikipedia is not a memorial. whats with all these war veteren obituaries recently? Ydam 12:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. If all asserted facts are true, he would be notable. I suspect, but can't prove, a hoax. Born in 1800, he was the right age to be a powder monkey in the war of 1812. But that would make him over 60 during the Civil War, yet he is supposedly a veteran of that war also. That would be noteworthy. So why can't I find any references to him on a google search, having tried three different combinations of search terms? (Of course, if better evidence is made available, let me know on my talk page so I can change my vote accordingly.) GRBerry 02:43, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MVPmods

Article reads like an ad; it was created on a single edit by a new user, which may denote that it was taken from somewhere else. Site ranks 110,007 in Alexa. JoaoRicardo^talk 03:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB (The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.) Adambiswanger1 04:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable website. - Tangotango 08:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability that passes WP:WEB Kevin 09:31, 11 June 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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act

A summary of nesara.org, which is about a non-notable fringe legislative proposal with a single secondary source that's significantly shorter than the article. No citable criticism of the proposal seems to exist. RandomP 03:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I edit this article once in a while. I have no interest in the plan itself from a political standpoint. I understand this is a fringe proposal with little or no legislative action. Thus there is little criticism or documentation. However, I don't know if that is reason enough to delete it. It seems to be a real plan with some small support. Perhaps it's a waste of space - doesn't bother me much either way. Morphh 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Morphh. Yes, it needs a facelift. But let's keep it. Adambiswanger1 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Totally nutty, but sufficiently well-established to be notable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a legislative proposal which has not even been introduced into Congress, and per the article doesn't even have any supporters there. Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of this proposal, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate if/when it gets introduced to Congress or even gets notable support. Opabinia regalis 05:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per O.regalis ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all minor leaguers, un-elected candidates, and un-proposed legislative proposals, unless they be truly NOTABLE. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it has no supporters and no mainstream media coverage. As it is only a proposal the title is misleading as well. Kevin 09:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, partially because of its nuttiness, if it could be verified that it has any supporters. See below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unintroduced, fringe legislation. --JChap 19:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kevin. —Khoikhoi 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it's simply not notable. Reyk _YO! 02:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Commment It's got a subforum on http://www.quatloos.com &mdash not just a thread, a subforum. That leans toward being notable, at least in that context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be more applicable to NESARA_conspiracy_theory. - Morphh 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link? All I can find is about NESARA the scam, which is not the same as NESARA the legislative proposal (I'm not sure about their relationship. They seem to have different expansions of the acronym, and the scam is quite notable while the legislative proposal is not.

(posted after edit conflict, though it reads like a me too)

RandomP 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I'm not sure of the relationship, either. I think this one should be deleted as failing WP:V, as I can't find any reference to it which is not a reference to the conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not verifiable. Almost all references are to the "legislation" in NESARA_conspiracy_theory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The legislation seems to be fully documented at the asscribed site nesara.org and its fringe status is not a good reason for deletion as most new ideas start out on the fringe of conventional thinking. Carbonate 05:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The version at nesara.org exists, but is not notable. (Especially since the first google reference to "nesara.org" is from nesara.org, and the second is from nesara.us....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to NESARA conspiracy theory Deleuze 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is the SECOND time this article has been put it up for deletion. It survived once. It should survive again. It IS notable, notably in DISTANCING the legitimate version from the well-known hoax. It is a valid proposal that has merits against the Flat Tax, and other tax proposals. It is also a valid proposal that has merits against the Moneteray Reform Act, and other monetary reform proposals. It is based on a published book. It is cited by several sources, and not just the nesara.org page. Further, it is informative to those interested in knowing what the difference is between the hoax version and the NESARA Institute's version. There is a link on both the NESARA and NESARA conspiracy theory linking both to the other so as to present the information seperately, clearly, and distinctly. I am not from NESARA, I do not work for NESARA. I just happened to find out about it while reading a news article about it, and also by reading an interview with its author, by a notable news source. I believe that to delete this article would violate the founding principles of wikipedia - namely it would mean deleting NOTABLE information from the public view. Those unfamiliar with the topic often don't take the time to look into it before forming their own opinions about it, especially since the hoax version is so noticiable, and has already "poisened the well" in its receipt by those in Congress. With the death of the author last May, it has been even harder to fight the credibility issues the hoax version has created for the NESARA Institute. This article helps then to give people an OBJECTIVE view of Dr. Barnard's legislative proposal, as compared to other reform proposals that already are notable for inclusion in wikipedia. I ask that the administrator consider the fact that a real NESARA exists as opposed to the fake hoax one - one that doesn't even look like the original but attempts to steal the name of the original. I also ask that the administrator consider the fact that the public wants objective information about the non hoax version of NESARA. This article is also not original research, any more than Flat Tax is. It is just as notable as other tax reform proposals that have been listed on wikipedia. I agree the article needs clean up, but to delete it altogether would be unfair to the effort at seperating the two NESARAs for the public view, and the intention of the editors of both NESARA and NESARA conspiracy theory. inigmatus 14:45, 16 June 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Pantheism

I am the author of this piece. I have already made a few edits to it to negate several of the comments about it. I will do more in the next several weeks to make it worthy of inclusion. The term neo-pantheism is needed to cover the versions of pantheism that are sprouting up and to differentiate them from the classical Pantheism of Spinoza. Most of these modern outlooks are atheistic and the use of the term of pantheism to describe themselves is consequently questionable as historically Pantheism has been theistic in its cosmic view. This is a point that needs more discussion. Also a bit more description of the present forms of neo-pantheism would be appropriate and would broaden its coverage. I did not coin the term but found it being used in Christian articles to describe new age viewpoints that are not theistic. This also needs to be addressed so those looking for an explanation of what neo-pantheism is can get one. I will need till the end of June to do the research needed to edit this to the standard Wikipedia deserves.I pledge am honest effort to do this. Commentors - please reevaluate July 3.

Reason the page should be deleted MAurelius 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for proposed deletion: This article is the hyped summary of a personal philosophy by a single individual, written by that individual. If this kind of thing is accepted, then everyone on the planet will insert their private philosophy into Wikipedia.

Outside of the WIKI entry, the concept is propounded on a set of webpages in related domains, all of them owned by a single individual, the person who authored the article.

It makes claims regarding originality that are not valid. Eg: "Consequently it [neo-pantheism) has a much broader base than most Pantheisms in that it is a composite of many prevailing philosophies both pantheistic and otherwise. As such, it is a more complex and complete philosophy.

It has no "notability."

• I'm inclined to say keep but rewrite. Google books suggests use of the term to identify a concept distinct from traditional pantheism from 1917[13], 1928[14], and possibly as early as 1908[15]. Ergo, this is not a new concept, or a single person's quest to spread an idea. BD2412 T 23:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Kudos for finding those quotes. However, adding the prefix "neo" to just about any trend in art or ideas is a very common practice and unless the addition comes to be widely known as having a defined meaning, it remains arbitrary, variable and idiosyncratic. The article as presented is not a study about the development of this term or of groups of people adhering to this term. It is the presentation of a single variant by a single individual, promoted only within the last couple of months by that same single individual, on a set of web domains owned by that same individual, and following the idiosyncratic definition of that single individual, eg to quote from it:

"neo-Pantheism is currently only applicable to the version being proposed to congeal these different viewpoints in to one comprehensive paradigm. Consequently it has a much broader base than most Pantheisms in that it is a composite of many prevailing philosophies both pantheistic and otherwise. As such, it is a more complex and complete philosophy.

neo-Pantheism is defined as a consilience of scientific, naturalistic and humanistic ideas."

Note the words "only applicable" and the expression: "the version being proposed."

This article simply does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for "notability." Wikipedia will become worthless if anyone can promote their personal philosophy here, regardless of how much it is known or followed.

MAurelius T

• Agreed, hence my vote to keep but rewrite. BD2412 T 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• The core problem is this: there is no discernible set of beliefs known (outside of that one individual's website) as "neo-pantheism." There are two modern books in print about pantheism - Paul Harrison's Elements of Pantheism and Michael Levine's Pantheism. Neither one even mentions neo-pantheism. Therefore this topic fails the "notability" test - there simply isn't anything to include in an article about "neo-pantheism."

MAurelius T

I am re-listing this AfD, as it has not yet been resolved BD2412 T 04:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The article as it stands now is flawed. Based on BD2412's comments above, there is a body of neo-pantheism beyond what is currently covered in the article. Accordingly, rewrite the article to cover the subject broadly. —C.Fred (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete like most "neo" isms, it hasn't condensed into a specific definition worthy of an article as far as I can tell. The article as it stands is borderline original research, if "research" is the right term for "intersperse grandiose claims about stuff I made up with vaguely related but legit-sounding citations". Opabinia regalis 06:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice- it's a worthwhile topic, but right now, it's an unsourced essay and there's no evidence of any attempt to fix it. BigDT 06:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per OR concerns raised by O.r. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:MAurelius -- Kevin 09:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, "neo" variations of established subjects need to be established themselves, not an excuse for an essay. Equendil Talk 10:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subject does not suffciently exist beyond single sources. Too close to OR Ydam 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an interesting read, but not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Having considered the above arguments, I have changed my mind - delete, then re-create as a re-direct to pantheism, and add a few lines citing the refs I found and explaining that some writers have used the term "neo-pantheism" to describe different approaches to pantheism, but that these uses are inconsistent, and the term itself has no set meaning. BD2412 T 16:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Re-create and merge to pantheism as per BD2412's arguments. Pantheism is a worthy Wiki topic, as is paganism. There are lots of neo-pagan, and neo-whatever ideas that should be included, but this article as now written doesn't merit a stand-alone: insufficient notability, in sufficent external support. Pare it way down, put the surviving lines in pan-theism, and then if the author or others want to expand it in NPOV form with proper referencing, it could grow enough to merit its own article. But I doubt that'll happen. Interlingua 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (merging anything that's significant and not already oncluded in Pantheism to that article). The subject is essentially just pantheism — the prefix "neo-" does nothing more than indicate that we're concerned with recent discussions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 17 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidbury

I started to wikify this as part of the wikification drive, but not too long into it I decided that it may be all for naught if the {{verify}} template on the article had merit. However, I was unable to verify any part of this article, so it left me with no choice but to nominate it. Should someone verify it and it survives AfD, then I'll resume my wikification. Agent 86 04:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless verifed before closing of AfD. youngamerican (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Agent and Youngamerican Adambiswanger1 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete couldn't verify it. >Silly grin< - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 08:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per fails WP:V Ydam 12:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The name Sidbury does not appear in the index of the cited book. Fails WP:V Kevin 00:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:00, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Chappell

This was disputed as a speedy delete, but there is really nothing in this article that asserts any importance or significance. Google gets 128 hits, few of which are relevant to this Joe Chappell, and none of which could be considered significant media citations. Which makes sense because he's barely out of college. Let's wait until he becomes notable in his own right, and then write an article about him. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• DElete as a bio of a non-notable person. Not sure how Academic Challenger came to the conclusion that this is not a {{db-bio}} candidate but certainly the article does not assert that this meets WP:BIO. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article fails to assert notability of subject Ydam 12:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most likely vanity, but ceraintly fails to assert notability. Adambiswanger1 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely not notable, likely vanity. Vartan84 16:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Please delete as I now see why this does not fit WP:BIO requirements. Romanpoems 16:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:00, 12 June 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 of the debate was No consensus, but it appears that Merging these articles to List of unfinished Invader Zim episodes has some agreement. In any case, keep vs merge debates can be held outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Pants! (When Pants Ruled!) as a copyvio because there was no content after all the copyvio content was removed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roboparents Gone Wild

WP:FICT Unfinished, never-aired Invader Zim episodes. Non-notable as such. John Nagle 05:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a multiple-article Articles for Deletion request for several such articles.

The list:

• Roboparents Gone Wild
• Simon Says Doom
• Nubs of Doom
• 10 Minutes to Doom
• The Return of Keef
• Day of da Spookies
• It Feeds on Noodles
• Pants! (When Pants Ruled!)

These are all shows that never aired, and most were never finished. --John Nagle 05:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Its ties to aired show make it notable, much as we have listing for the unaired Buffy pilot and such. Ace of Sevens 05:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Buffy the Vampire Slayer has had an impact on popular culture, leading to greater notability for all of the aspects of the subject, even by non-fans. I do not think this show has reached a similiar level of influence. Besides, as these article stand, there is very little context. Surely even a fan of the show could not gain any information from them? -Fsotrain09 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Reverse crystalballism. Forget that the show that they are associated with is notable. Association with the notabile is not a basis for notability of the thing itself. The res here is the nonairing, and until we see a basis why that is notable these remain forever inchoate black holes of content.--Fuhghettaboutit
• Strong delete in the absence of verifiable sources. The closest I can find to a source mentioned in these articles is for Pants!...which was tagged as a copyvio of a fansite and subsequently blanked. —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, But Merge Each unfinished episode does not deserve it's own page, but if a script is online (and it is from the trusted sorce) then I would consider it notable because it is from a notable TV series. BinaryCleric 08:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete All per nom. An utter waste of time, and non-notable. Moreschi 09:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, But Merge These pages should be merged into a single page, as some (particularly '10 minutes to doom' and 'the trial' (which doesn't have a page yet)) are of massive importance to the series due to tying up plot ends and giving important character development. As the audio is finished for many of these and have been released in a 'radio drama' format on DVD, they have technically still been released to the public officially and should be considered important and cannonoligical (I likely spelt that wrong) Devilmaycare 10:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, But Merge as per above --Richmeister 10:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all per Moreschi. --Coredesat 12:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, notable television show, and these appear to be notable unfinished eps. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• What exactly is a "notable unfinished episode", and what are their signs and symptoms? --Calton | Talk 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, 'The Trial' revealed lots of important information on Zim's past, how he killed two of his former peoples leaders, and well as the events leading up to his rampage in the first episode. 'Nubs of doom' introduced a new character that was to appear in a lot of episodes (he also appeared in the last episode show, as they finished that before cancelation). The others arn't really notable, but should have a page for the little factiods such as; 'The return of keef' informs us that keef had survived in the 'bestest friend' episodes, when everyone thought he dies at the end of it and 'Day of da Spookies' shows a secondry character becoming a major character from that point onwards ('Invader Skoodge' moves in with Zim to help him). Hope that clears things up. Devilmaycare 06:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete all as per Moreschi Bwithh 21:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep part of our Invader Zim coverage. --JJay 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There really is no good reason for encumbring Wikipedia with this kind of crap. Merge into existing articles if you must, but this sort of trash does nobody any good. Reyk _YO! 23:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reverse crystal-balling, remaining "forever inchoate black holes of content" -- a phrase I'm going to try to work into conversation sometime this week. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- GWO
• Delete - I am a MASSIVE fan of the show, but agree that as it's hard to verify these things it does not have a place here. --DennyCrane Talk 13:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If they were aired or had any claim to notability otherwise, it might be a different story, but these don't belong here. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of unfinished Invader Zim episodes. - CNichols 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. List of unfinished Invader Zim episodes already has plot summaries. --John Nagle 02:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into one big article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the List of unfinished Invader Zim episodes. People should be able to get basic information on them if that's what they're looking for. --User:Sobekneferu 2:41 June 16 2006 (UTC-7)
• Strong Keep all --alex 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Episodes that have never aired are in no way notable. --Musicpvm 03:12, 19 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lockblocker

Neologism —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed. Even Urban Dictionary might not take it, and certainly not Wiktionary. --maru (talk) contribs 05:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We need a neon sign on the main page to refrain from posting articles on neologisms.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The neon sign idea is great, until the newbies come up with a term for it and write an article about it.... :) —C.Fred (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly Neologism. Anyone create a new portmanteau word to describe anything, without understanding that it's inconsequential. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism copied from urbandictionary - Motor (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Motor.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yet another neogalism Ydam 12:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Coredesat 12:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete Funny, though. I hate lockblockers. Adambiswanger1 14:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:01, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Gamerz

This is non-notable even for two-episode Flash cartoons. There is absolutely nothing about this series that sets it apart from the thousands or hundreds of thousands of other marginalia online. --maru (talk) contribs 05:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, NN in any manner. -Goldom (t) (Review) 05:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I dont see why the page is any less valuable then half of the stuff in wikipedia. Many short series and flash cartoons and the like are listed here, and there's no real reason to delete them, they aren't biased or anything, and for anyone wanting more information about it, it's useful. BTW, its creator already has a fairly big fanbase on newgrounds and elsewhere. Falco1029 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

every article must stand on its own. It doesn't really matter what else is on wikipedia. We are talking about this right now. --Crossmr 05:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Im saying that if Wikipedia's standards allow those, they should allow this too --Falco1029 05:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, I like how your reason is because you don't see how it sets itself apart. That is purely opinion and a horrible reason for wanting something to be deleted Falco1029 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a horrible person. --maru (talk) contribs 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's not notable by Wikipedia standards. That takes it out of the realms of opinion. It should be noted that Falco1029 is the creator of the article. Danny Lilithborne 05:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it ever establishes real notability, its welcome to comeback. --Crossmr 05:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(on newgrounds) VG2 Got daily second place, all are voted above 3.4 with hundreds of votes, and mostly good reviews. It's about as notable as anything else around here....Falco1029 05:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, only brings up a few search results. Ckessler 06:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even admits to WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 06:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom - Motor (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 12:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable. If this exact same animation was the work of anyone besides User:Falco1029, Falco wouldn't care if it was deleted. Let's just get this over with. -- Kicking222 12:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make any of those. Those aren't my work, they're my brother's (and to a lesser extent, his friends'), and i happen to like them. Falco1029 05:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 23:23, 12 June 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 of the debate was Keep. There seems to be some argument as to whether this content should be merged with Newgrounds. Such a keep vs. merge debate can be done outside of AfD if need be. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decline of Video Gaming

Only claim to notability is a "large following within the gaming community". This is both unlikely (R vs B has a following; not so much this) and unreferenced. Even if it were accurate, I don't think it's particularly notable. --maru (talk) contribs 05:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Does honestly look to be among the best-known series on a very well known website. Pages list "over 1 million views". Notable enough for me. Also, that this article was listed for this reason doesn't sit well with me: see Talk:Video Gamerz. (Even though I voted delete on that AfD, this one appears far more notable). Needs cleanup of course though.

-Goldom (t) (Review) 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Elaborating I know some people would consider anything going on at a site like Newgrounds "meaningless internet cruft", and this isn't to say I like the material, but the fact is that that site is very, very popular, Alexa rating in the 500s, so I think that the most popular material on a popular site would, by association, be notable. -Goldom (t) (Review) 09:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Notable on newgrounds... which is why there's nothing wrong with discussing the most popular newgrounds entries on the newgrounds article. Just don't create special articles just for them. - Motor (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A good point. I suppose the question is whether it has popularity outside the Newgrounds crowd.. if not, then I'd say a merge&redirect is in order. -Goldom (t) (Review) 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research about some non-notable flashcruft. - Motor (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the "Decline" series is a Newgrounds staple, with over a million views apiece and receiving assorted viewer's choice, features and crew awards. It's in the upper tier so far as "notability" in its medium goes. Papacha 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was very popular on newgrounds. I believe it reached the top of whatever lists they have over there. more noteworthy than a lot of flash's we have in here Ydam 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Delete After consideration I've come to realise that this really doesn't meet requirements for inclusion Ydam 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is at least marginally notable, and the article is well-written. --Coredesat 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: One of the most notable Flash series on the net. Possibly one of the top 10 IMO, but maybe more around top 25. --SeizureDog 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. Adambiswanger1 14:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is one of the more popular series on Newgrounds, yes. But I'm not 100% sure being notable on NG is the same as being notable in general. Unlike several other NG flashes that have pages, I haven't seen this one much outside of it. --UsaSatsui 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Non-notable newgroundscruft/gamescruft fancruft junkcruft nonnotablecruft. Just because something seems "popular", doesn't automatically give it encyclopedic status Bwithh 20:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. Erik the Rude 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Note-notable, useless. --Starionwolf 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Goldom. I would also suggest that Bwithh tone down the derogatory slang. --JJay 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If its big on Newgrounds, mention it at Newgrounds. Insignificant fads like this come and go, and then are rightfully forgotten. -- GWO
• Delete all faddy stuff temporarily popular in teen subcultures. Sandstein 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough flash. Voice of Treason 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Over 1 million views is I feel enough for something to be notable. Wikipedia is not paper, and the article seems reasonably well written. Why delete it? Mrjeff 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, by what measure? Is it unique views? The only source of this claim is newgrounds. And while Wikipedia is not paper, it's not newgrounds either, nor is a place for plugging assorted flash animations. A notable flash animation is almost a contradiction in terms really, unless you happen to be talking about those JibJab presidential spoofs that were all over the press. - Motor (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays I personally consider flash animations the same I would consider films. True, we don't know exactly what that 1 million means, I hadn't thought of that. But if an amateur film had been seen by 100,000 people, would that be a big enough audience to be worth having a wikipedia page about? Mrjeff 12:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Nowadays, I need reliable sources to show that is notable... not vigorous assertions from its creators. It also fails WP:WEB, BTW. It comes back to the point I made originally: notable on newgrounds does not mean notable anywhere else, and since Wikipedia is not a directory for newgrounds... keep it on the newgrounds article where it belongs. If it turns into a JibJab style subject that is notable by itself, then recreate it. - Motor (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. --Musicpvm 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Extremely notible. Its popular outside of the newgrounds community. Besides, if Decline of Video Gaming is deleted because it is "all faddy stuff temporarily popular in teen subcultures", then why do Madness Combat, Maximum Ninja, and Xiao Xiao still have articles? They were/are just "all faddy stuff temporarily popular in teen subcultures". -- J Assassin 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, user has only one edit and it is to this AFD. - Motor (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I would also like to add here that WP:VERIFY is not an option on Wikipedia. It is a policy requirement. The subject of this article, at the moment, has no presence outside of newgrounds and a few mentions on personal websites. It has no notablity, and it fails WP:WEB. It is basically a description of some flash animations that someone saw and decided to describe in a Wikipedia article. Arguments comparing it to other flash animations are irrelevant, and is just arguing for some kind of lowest common denominator. We have to judge this article on its own merits and against the policy requirements of Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 10:13, 19 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanessa Loya

I originally proposed this article for deletion because it did not assert the notability of the subject. The creator of the article subsequently removed the tag and added a section called "notability," which states that Vanessa Loya graduated high school at the age of 15 and is working on a double major at the University of Arizona. I congratulate Miss Loya on her accomplishments, but this is a non-notable/unencyclopedic biography, if not an autobiography. Delete. Joel7687 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. hateless 06:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads more like a Daddiography to me. Congratulations to the dad too, but Delete per nom nonetheless. ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Thanks for posting your (child's) college admissions essay. I guess it worked, but that doesn't make it notable. Opabinia regalis 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Admire the effort to assert notability but it doesn't really cut it. Oh and don't forget to remove the link in Salpointe Catholic High School which describes her as fantastic student, big-haired goddess and overall smiler Ydam 12:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. --Coredesat 12:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no apparent notability. Jammo (SM247) 23:32, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artentainment

Non-notable. Ral315 (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nom pretty much says it all. Opabinia regalis 06:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not important enough. No G-hits! --soum^সৌমোyasch 06:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Coredesat 12:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and my original prod.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Jammo (SM247) 23:31, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sphal

Originally, according to the article text, "sphal" was a word created by a Joe Lubitsch in 1992 expressing something that is soon forgotten. Sounded silly, and was clearly violating WP:NEO after a quick google search, so I tagged the article with prod. One edit later by an editor going by its IP address, Joe, now Joseph Lubitsch, suddenly is a yoga expert who founded a new school of yoga called "Spahl." I'm going to call BS on this, nothing in the article is verifiable and it smells like a hoax. hateless 05:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and hopefully soon forgotten. Hoax. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Mysore, India? limiting the movements of the male and female pelvis? Mildly funny hoax. Opabinia regalis 06:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, original research. Tychocat 09:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense.--Andeh 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete absolute nonsense. Even if you ignore that, it's original research that isn't notable. --Coredesat 12:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Either nonsense or neologism. Adambiswanger1 14:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hateless, I second your call of "BS". Reyk _YO! 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Eluchil404 09:44, 13 June 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] delegative democracy

No notable usage offered (see article's Talk for details). - David Oberst 06:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• delete as per nom. Rklawton 06:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Original research at best. Tychocat 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 12:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment the term seems fairly widely used, as here and here. Maybe it just needs some cleanup. Adambiswanger1 14:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I was only involved in the article because it was bad. I've never heard this term except as a synonym for representative democracy. --Tjss(Talk) 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article appears to be an argument for the existence for a very narrowly used term that's a synonym of a preexisting encyclopedia term rather than a proper encyclopedia term on its own accord. There _may_ be something there that would work as a blurb within representative democracy, but as a standalone concept, I see no notability. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mergeto Representative Democracy. The language is too chatting and reads too much like lecture notes, but the idea of distinguishing between representative and delegative democracies is interesting and presented NPOV. Interlingua 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be merged if there is no notable usage? It's basically a bunch of stuff that one guy made up. I'd agree if his material came from an academic journal or the like. Rklawton 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Nightstallion (?) 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Term; No Idea

This is an interesting situation. We are going to delete an idea of a possible type of democracy simply because there is no standard term for it -- or so it seems. The idea is that voters in small groupings elect a delgate to represent them in some higher level assembly. For example, Native Americans elected a chief who represented them in inter-tribal assemblies. What is this type of democracy to be called? In Russia, workers in factories elected delegates who met in inter-factory councils. What are we to call this type of democracy? These seem to be two example of some type of -- what shall we call it? "representative" democracy. But it isn't the usual type of representative democracy, its a peculiar type of representative democracy that doesn't seem to have a handy name. It has been proposed to call it "delegative democracy" or "bottom-up democracy" -- but, obviously, there is resistance to using these phrases. So, what is the genus of which soviet and Native American tribal federations are species? Does this mean that if we can't come up with a name, the idea can't be expressed? And does it mean that if you can't name it, it doesn't exist? A situation out of 1984?Skovoroda 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you would take the time to read our policies as they have already been presented to you, you would know why this is happening. The short of it is this: we do not publish original research here. I've said this before: do the work, get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then come back here and report on it. In short, if it isn't verifiable, it doesn't belong here. If you can't get your work published and you still want to write essays on Democracy, start up a nice blog somewhere (else). Rklawton 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you make the incorrect assumption that we're trying to suppress information we don't want to see here. Nothing could be further from the truth (note: I am very pro-democracy and run the Democracy 2.0 website, so why would I want to suppress articles related to democracy?) When any added content is in dispute, the party that added said content is asked to provide proof of encyclopedic relevance. Your arguments here in text convince nobody because frankly, we aren't looking for arguments and we cannot take your word for it anyway--that's why we ask for sources that prove the existence of the concept as is described in the article in question. And this policy applies to *everyone*, so to be fair, please play by the rules like everyone else must do. Further "arguments" are a waste of textual space and will be ignored. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 04:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The article by Guillermo O’Donnell, “Delegative Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 5 (January 1994), pp. 55–69, uses the term "delegative democracy" in a peer-reviewed journal, and there are very many references to it -- so, at least his usage should be reported on. And since there is some ambiguity in the use of the phrase, an attempt should be made at disambiguation.

I'm sorry to read that Stevie the man isn't looking for arguments . . . you are removing yourself from rational discourse.Skovoroda 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not a discussion board. When you're asked for sources, nobody is interested in rational or irrational arguments to support the thesis of your article, but rather in references and links to sources. Absent that, there's nothing else to talk about.

Do you have a link to said article, or can you post the relevant text from the article? Also, if that's all you can find, perhaps that deserves a blurb in representative democracy, but an entire article based on a term one guy coined? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The O'Donnell paper is available as a PDF here[16]. He's a senior Helen Kellogg professor at Notre Dame, and the paper(s) he's written on this seem to have some currency with political science seminars and papers, etc. If someone knows enough about O'Donnell's notability and wants to create an entry for him, including a section on his "delegative" work, feel free, and have "delegative democracy" redirect there. Or if it has generated a wide body of other work and notability, a new article could be created under this title. But as I noted somewhere, O'Donnell has nothing to do with the rest of the current article, which can be deleted. - David Oberst 22:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

From skimming the article, I have surmised that the author has re-discovered illiberal democracy. Perhaps let's add a link to O'Donnell's article there? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 01:31, 14 June 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GBO Trusted Enterprise Award

No Vote THis article was speedy deleted but then a hangon tag was placed, and another user wanted more time for considering this article. I've brought it to AFD, we'll see how it does. J.J.Sagnella 07:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as promotional material, and no GHits. - Tangotango 08:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Change of vote to delete zero google hits, maybe a hoax J.J.Sagnella 09:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at best, this is an ad for GBO, assuming they exist. Even if they do, nn. Tychocat 09:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Coredesat 12:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. It reads like an blurb sent with an invitation. Notabality, not encyclopedic in style or referencing. Interlingua 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the author's now-deleted other article and rewrite to Wikipedia's standards of notability and neutrality. Explain actions to new user. If article is deleted, give the writer a brief, tactful explanation.

The article's creator, User:Pingfan, is brand new. He created both GBO Trusted Enterprise Award and Global Business Opportunity Forum Singapore 2006. I welcomed Pingfan to Wikipedia and made some notes on his talk page about Wikipedia policies and the changes he might want to look at making to both articles. Both articles are/were very commercial. The award page doesn't address notability at all. The now missing forum article noted 10,000 attendees and senior level government officials from around the region attended (that should have at least caught someone's eye).

I track the new users I welcome for a few days, which is how I became aware of the speedy deletion tags. Both articles were tagged for speedy deletion by User:Average Earthman using an obsolete tag, {{delete}} with no explanation given, notwithstanding the tag's comment: "Note to the person adding this template: Please consider supplying a reason for deletion using {{db}} or one of the other speedy deletion templates, instead of using this template."). I put {{hangon}} tags on both articles and put my reasons on the talk pages (1 and 2). You can read my comments; I thought they were fairly reasonable. The only response I got was on one page: "Okay you can have your way. I've listed it for afd." No other comments from anyone else have been listed on either Pingfan's talk page or the article talk pages. Notwithstanding the {{hangon}} tag, Global Business Opportunity Forum Singapore 2006 was deleted anyway by an admin, User:MarkGallagher.

The forum's web site indicates it's associated with the "Global Entrepolis @ Singapore (GES)". Google hits:

"GBO Trusted Enterprise Award": none

"Global Business Opportunity Forum": 18 (only 9 unique)

"Global Entrepolis": 22,100

These are English language hits only; the sites also have material in Chinese.

A brief search reveals the overall Global Entrepolis show attracts Singapore's prime minister as well as cabinet-level ministers from surrounding countries. Attendance last year was 14,000; the show has grown by about 2,000 people every year. Wikipedia treats tradeshows, conferences and forums inconsistently. For auto shows alone, Wikipedia has articles on 20 shows, including the Nashville-area only, grandly-named Nashville International Auto and Truck Show. Some other major shows, such as Globalcomm, the biggest US telecommunications show, don't have articles.

Other:

Wikipedia:Etiquette: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative."

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page."

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author — remember, everyone was new once."

Procedure for Administrators: "Admins should specify the deletion criteria in their edit summary and should notify the article's creator about the deletion, where applicable."

Please do NOT bite the newcomers: All 11 bullet points are relevant.

--A. B. 21:09, 11 June 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 of the debate was No consensus. The article in its current condition definitely needs to be cleaned iup, however. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female Parliamentarians

Idiosyncratic mixture of facts and POV musings. David Oberst 07:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no context. Tychocat 09:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 12:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to an article on parliamentary representation. The advocacy of the piece is something which I happen to agree with but which isn't NPOV. I think that the issue of gender and parliamentary represntation is certainly appropriate to an encyclopedia. If not a merge, then a purge of the POV and a labelling of this as a stub. There certainly is enough to be said on this topic to right a full, true, NPOV article. Interlingua 19:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if this is the only article on the topic -- the search engine isn't picking up any others under the search terms I've tried, but I can't believe a proper essay on the topic doesn't already exist. The subject is interesting and important. The present article needs pruning back and tagging as a stub. Espresso Addict 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The topic is encyclopedic, but this WP:OR blather is useless. Needs a complete rewrite. Sandstein 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant OR, the term parliamentarian is not even relevant to many countries. Jammo (SM247) 23:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research essay. --mtz206 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 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 of the debate was Merge. After consultation with the nominator and considering trialsanderrors comment (and the comment on the page's talk page), this page will be merged with Gold medalists at the IBF World Championships and then redirected there.--Commander Keane 04:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Badminton World Champions

This article consists the information as like page Gold medalists at the IBF World Championships, also they are not provide the full information like page the link provided. So it is considered duplicated. Aleenf1 07:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• This looks more like a Merge request to me. Better content under the GmIBFWC entry but clearly the LoBWC (Lobwc?) title is more descriptive. No reason to delete. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 11 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Integrated Core Curriculum

NN By its own admission, a class in lieu of general studies at a particular uni, 9 real ghits from 60 duplicates reveals complete non-notability SM247 23:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. nn promo. KleenupKrew 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, No Guru 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above BigDT 17:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have said merge to [Core_curriculum|here] except that it involves one institution, a handful of students, and is already a dead letter. This is an epitaph, not an encyclopedia entry. If this concept had been picked up at other colleges, and there was evidence for this in terms of Google hits, I'd have stuck with a merge. Failing that, I stand by my delete.Interlingua 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 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 of the debate was Redirected to Self esteem.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low self esteem

Article is duplicated at self esteem. Additionally, no formatting and unecyclopedic in tone V. Joe 06:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC) This AfD nomination was incorrectly-formatted by V. Joe. Now listed properly.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This has apparently been changed to a redirect to self esteem. I can live with that, but I was tempted to add the quote "I like having low self-esteem. It makes me feel special" (Jane Lane, from Daria). --John Nagle 07:37, 11 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omygodimonfire

Non-notable, even on the fringe basis of flashcruft or meme. Nothing that couldn't be added to the parent article Decline of Video Gaming should it survive its own AfD. Put this one out. Papacha 08:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 169.231.23.121 09:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tychocat 09:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. If anything justifies an expansion in the criteria for speedy deletion... it's stuff like this. - Motor (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obscure fancruft Ydam 12:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fan of the series and I've never heard the line quoted. And I have over 10,000 posts on Newgrounds, I would freaking know if it's used. Now if it was "Isonfire", then I'd say keep, but that's an entirely different fad. --SeizureDog 12:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. --Coredesat 12:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ohmygoddelete as unencyclopedic fancruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At the most, this could be a one-sentence entry in an article on Internet slang. It's not an article in itself. Interlingua 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom skorpion 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "...even been used as a username for the World of Warcraft forums" = gold. _dk 08:02, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Masterson

His IMDB profile lists him largely as a production assistant. Winning the Howard Stern award doesn't make him notable, as per low Google hits. Punkmorten 09:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 12:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment may be a candidate for {{db-empty}} tag.--Andeh 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until he does something other than win this one award and merits more than a one line article. -- DrunkenSmurf 19:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --mtz206 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Kaffee Web Radio

Non-notable, The fact that it allows less then 20 users could mean its not popular (google cache) only 3 websites link to it (google) and it doesnt look liceansed. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 09:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:WEB, google barely knows about it, though it's online content. Equendil Talk 10:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 12:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The idea behind the station might have been good, but as per reasons above (and the fact that it stopped working in Jan 2005) shows it fails to make notability requirements. Interlingua 19:56, 11 June 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 of the debate was Keep 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Efeler Lisesi

Non-notable, what makes it the best? No sources. Delete. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, this is better than a good many high school stubs on Wikipedia, and there's no concensus that schools should be notable for inclusion. Equendil Talk 10:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Equendil. Accurizer 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's a weak stub, but then again, that's OK for stubs to be. There are many high-school articles that are now both notable and well written but which started out as stubs worse than this. To show what can happen in less than 6 months, look at these from a selective enrollment school here in Chicago: June 11, 2006 with from Dec 20, 2005. For many Wikipedians, a magnet school in a global city like Chicago (or New York, or Paris, or ...) is going to immediately seem more notable than one in Aydin, Turkey, but if we're going to have a real encyclpedia of knowlegde, we shouldn't trust our first hunches, as per WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. Interlingua 20:08, 11 June 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 of the debate was delete. Among the established users here (i.e. who have numerous other contributions apart from contributing to this debate) the consensus is quite clear. I have looked at the media reference provided as an argument (here), but the mention of this website is very small and past precedent is that media coverage of that nature is insufficient to establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behind Big Brother Australia

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

It seems that the purpose of this article is for advertisement. This should not be allowed. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not an advertising resource. -- ChrisW

NOTE: The votes on this page were reordered by User:RealityJunkie7 to collect keep and delete comments together. Please do not do this. See WP:AFD#AfD etiquette - Motor (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable fan site. No evidence that the article was created for the purposes of advertisement. -- Barrylb 10:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I created the BBBA page. I have also created various other Big Brother pages including Greg Mathew, David Mathew and Tim Brunero. The site in question is non-commercial, very popular, and is in opposition to the commercial Big Brother website. In fact the site is so popular, Australian Big Brother contestants are forbidden to mention it because it is significatant opposition the the offical Big Brother site. I am EXTREMELY suspicious that this is called for deletion only hours after it first appeared. I created the first draft in 15 minutes & I'll be adding additional content in coming days. Gtoomey 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment There's nothing to be suspicious about, new pages and recent changes are constantly monitored by wikipedians such as me, hundred of new pages are deleted every day, some of which through this procedure. Equendil Talk 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I find it very odd that there was a call for deletion hours after the page first appeared. I said in the comments that this was a first draft. This article has as much a place as any other Big Brother article I've contributed to. Gtoomey 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Read above again, there are people patrolling new pages all the time, a lot of articles are being proposed for deletion within minutes of them being created. Equendil Talk 06:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep In regards to the person who said that this isn't a well known site, in fact it is, with thousands of hits a week and 11,000 registered users on the forums you can hardly say it's an unpopular site. This article has been posted to inform users of the BBBA community information on the site and there is still more information to come. By the way, why does a site like Miniclip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniclip) receive allowance to have an article, if this is an encyclopedia then who gives a crap about a games website. You are contradicting yourselves here Wiki Nazis, let BBBA be! And for the record, there is thousands of sites here, so how can you honestly say Wikipedia isn't a listing for website history. Thanks. - realityJunkie RealityJunkie7 12:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, user's only edits are to this AFD. - Motor (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I find it funny you're only checking the credibility of the users who vote to keep, but not those who vote to delete. I've been on wikipedia numerous times and created this nick just recently so I could comment with my BBBA username. I'm not a newbie.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.67.233 (talk • contribs).
      • Comment, I'm checking them all. - Motor (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is the largest fan site for Big Brother Australia and one of the largest Big Brother fan sites in general. While I definately think the page could do with a good ol' cleanup and expansion, it should be kept. ChenBot 11:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, user has two edits... one to the encylopedia, one to this AFD. - Motor (talk)
    • Comment, My account has actually been around for a while. I just tend not to super care about making changes. ChenBot 14:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The Wikipedia entry was made by a member of the Behind Big Brother community at my request with the intention to provide a template for community members to document the history of the community and website. The Wiki entry was only created today and im saddened that trolls have already decided to attempt its removal. If there are any queries please contact us via vibes@behindbigbrother.com. Regards - Josh - Behind Big Brother Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.122.212 (talk • contribs).

This user, IP or 'Josh' has 5 edits, 3 on this AFD and two vandalism/nonsense edits.--Andeh 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it cites some interesting articles there. And while it's certainly not notable here in America, I'm willing think that perhaps it has some status in Aussie-land. --SeizureDog 12:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate, the site actually has had some noted media attention in the past here (Australia) and I have found it funny that some people in this discussion who don't even live in Oz are willing to dismiss it just because they never heard of it. Thanks for keeping an open mind (to at least give in principle the opporunity to expand the article and show why it is worthy of staying on the site). ChenBot 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It is a no profit website that is quite popular and allows groups of people to chat about BB. It has attracted controvesy and is quite informative. The request to delete this page because it is 'advertising' is a rubbish. BBBA stands to gain very little from the Wiki listing other than informing those who are interested. Should Rove McManus' page be deleted because it seeks to advertise him, his business and show? NO. Should any AFL team;s Wiki entry be deleted because it postively high lights its good work and skills because it could be seen as advertising or self promotion? NO. Should the BBBA wiki entry be deleted because it is simply providing info on a popular site? NO. Kirsty.maree 13:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, user's two edits are to this AFD. - Motor (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And thats right i have two (now three edits and all here.. thats because i only joined a few days a go... it isnt like i JUST joined. Kirsty.maree 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a well known site, fails WP:WEB, and wikipedia is not for storing meta information about web sites. Equendil Talk 10:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed with the comment above. The entry contains no relevant information and the site is not a notable resource. Josh, please stick with proper formatting for the deletion page. No, trolls have not come along. This is not a notable site and Wikipedia is simply not a directory listing for website history. 220.237.23.132 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. - Motor (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Motor. --Coredesat 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Equendil.--Andeh 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, as appears to fail WP:WEB, which requires multiple mentions in other media. Article asserts one mention, but I am unable to find this or other mentions. --JChap 16:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Motor.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 17:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think its notable enough, although if it were cleared up, had something worthwhile written on it and was sufficiently sourced it might be worth keeping. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is fair to vote for a delete then? Considering it is a new article that hasn't had enough time for this to happen. -- Barrylb 06:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, per WP:WEB - ballot stuffing notwithstanding. BoojiBoy 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note. I expect nobody will find it surprising that the "BBBA" website has a thread [17] (registration required) about this article, and several calls were made for members of the forum to come here and "vote" so that the entry is kept. One comment in particular from a member "And what I find amazing is a guy from France of all places is calling BBBA 'not notable'. Yeah, right... I suggest people here create accounts and vote to keep this page. Oh we should definately clean it up and expand it and turn it into a real good reference but we shouldn't lead some stupid frog who has never even seen an episode of BBAU dictate too us!". I suppose the "frog" is me. Equendil Talk 18:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Brother site. It's notable for its connection to a part of pop culture but so far doesn't seem to have sufficient notability to merit its own stand-alone article. Interlingua 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:I can't see the point in merging website information to that article. I don't think we need anymore reasons to delete this article after what Equendil has told us.--Andeh 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Pointless non-notable article. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard for websites Bwithh 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of evidence that it satisfies WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yup, delete it. obviously wikipedia is full of idiots and having a BBBA entry would just make the website look bad 59.167.122.212 00:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Only apprears to have recieved a bit of mention in passing from media. ENpeeOHvee 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence that it passes WP:WEB. The Seven News reference mentions it in passing only, not as the subject. Kevin 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - pretty much the major, if not only, dissenting voice to the BB media machine in Australia. -- Chuq 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• "dissenting voice to the BB media machine"?...LOL - I'm sorry, but I just had to wonder if you were actually saying that with a straight face. I mean it's not like we're talking a dissenting voice to a monopolistic news/information sourse laustv.com.auike FOX/CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS - we're talking about a silly reality TV show. The way most people "dissent" against them is to simply not watch them, ignore them, and not care about them. And this site isn't even a site opposing the show - it's a fan site! ENpeeOHvee 03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And your experience with the Australian media is??? Big Brother is on up to 5 hours per day on prime time television, and BBBA is the major alternative to the official Endemol tv/radio/internet advertising blitz Gtoomey 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you are not familiar with the site. -- Barrylb 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the article about it and browsed through the site. I'm not sure what makes you think I'm "not familar"... ENpeeOHvee 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - it's in the same category as TVAus --bdude Talk 03:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough to keep. --Roisterer 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability issues, Wikipedia is not a metasite for all fansites. Jammo (SM247) 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - it's received media coverage on a channel independent from where it is shown. I would have thought that fulfilled WP:WEB? (JROBBO 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

The *show* has received media coverage, the web site is just barely acknowledged as existing. Equendil Talk 00:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the media coverage included an interview with admin/founder. --bdude Talk 08:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Motor and notability issues. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Filth, just like the Big Brother programme. michael ^talk 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- I actually use this site but apart from an external link on the main Big Brother (Australia) page, there isn't much use for an external entry on the article -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Not notable. Fansites do not deserve articles. --Musicpvm 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- agreeing with Chanlord, the external link at the Big Brother (Australia) article is sufficient. I don't think this website is deserving of its' own article. -- Longhair 07:26, 19 June 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 of the debate was Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Also deleting the redirect pages. --++Lar: t/c 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andorra the band

Page seems to be about a non-notable band in Australia, from what I can tell from the article and their website, they fail WP:MUSIC. Article was original proposed for deletion. Delete Yanksox 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

re Andorra the band Wikipedia is not US centric. Because an entrant isnt immediately familar to an editor with their own musical knowledge and tastes doesnt preclude an entrant. Go through the weblinks to see the activity and relevance of the band in the Asia-Pacific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.41.79 (talk • contribs).

• • speaking as someone who has worked extensively in music in the Asia-Pacific region, delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please take the time to read WP:Music. Yanksox 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Not listed on Allmusic. Cited links are primarily from forums and blogs. Fan1967 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above. No assertion of sufficient notability. -- Kicking222 01:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice - blog links and a few performances in Sydney's south are not notable enough for an encyclopaedia. SM247 01:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this page along with Andorramusic and Andorra-the-band.
  

PS: Can the page author stop vandalising this AfD? AlexTiefling 14:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Commment User may be reported to WP:AIV, if this keeps up. I'm going to warn him again. Yanksox 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to say what is note-worthy and what is not?

You see we do a lot of work for social justice here. What difference does it make in your life if this little bit of cyber-space helps us promote our cause peace and progress for our humanity community? None of course, but it will help us. So, let it go by the by and we'll all be happy. No-one is contradicting anyone, vandalising or slandering, we're just detailing several years of political progress through music and our ongoing efforts to bring peace.

Joel

Joel we are in the business of building an encylopedia not "[helping to] promote our cause peace and progress for our humanity community". Promote your band somewhere else. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• If your comments are legitimate then so are mine. If you object to the editing and removal of comments by others then your equal action is also objectionable. Therefore, as legitimately as before...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.34.25 (talk • contribs).

the business of building an encylopedia

A 'encyclopedia' is a store-house of knowledge covering all topics, just as a dictionary is. That includes individuals, organisations, objects and interests. To the communities of Australia our work is of current and historical relevance, as it is world-wide as an example of art, freedom fighting and social justice. A true 'encyclopedia' is one that is compiled objectively, outside of the ethno-centric value systems of an elite (in this case the millioneth of a % who own a computer and have access to the internet.) If you regard your monitoring and contributions here to be of significance then it will encompass that and accomodate the value of our accomplishments. Look through the links for the events and actions we have facilitated and read the responses and impetus they have generated and then ask: 'What have I created and accomplished and, bearing that in mind, what power do I have to eradicate information about others who are inspired to create history?'

Comment: It never ceases to amaze me how people who want to use Wikipedia to promote their cause, their group or themselves suddenly show up and try to tell us how we should do things. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Doesn't surprise me in the slightest anymore. If the standards of Wikipedia say this article doesn't belong, then there are two choices: remove the article or attack the standards. Fan1967 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• An IP left this comment at the top: Re: It never ceases to amaze me how people who want to use Wikipedia to promote their cause, their group or themselves suddenly show up and try to tell us how we should do things.

History, til this point has purely been a record endorsing the self-serving interests of the rich elite. One potential benefit of the internet (when it becomes accessible to the poor) will be the opportunity to break that standard. Instead of remaining an account which justifies the excesses of a few who reserve the tools that preserve information for themselves, the stranglehold may be broken. Let's hope that accounts, such as the music of social justice, illuminate a pathway to this.

• Comment Add Andorra the rock band, Andorra rock, and Andorra (band) to the ever increasing list. This guy doesn't seem to get it. That being said, WP:MUSIC says that two albums by a major or "more important" indie label establishes notability. Has anyone looked into what labels these were released under? --Kchase02 T 07:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Add Oz-andorra to the list, too. Would advise grumpy page-creator to read WP:POINT and provide better-attributed sources for one sole article, to give the project any chance of survivial. IMHO. AlexTiefling 08:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and check what links here for the final list of redirects! Blackspiderhead's childish behaviour means they do not deserve an article here. -- RHaworth 08:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Childish behavior on the part of a contributor is not a valid reason for deletion - it is cause for disciplinary action against the user. --Dystopos 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• And for Pete's sake quit blanking bits of this AfD! AlexTiefling 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete them all - and block the irritating child who's vandalising. Dweller 11:36, 7 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verses in the Old Testament criticizing apostates

Orphan, unsourced and POV commentary. Delete. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. -- Kicking222 12:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ... good grief ... this thing has been around since December 2001. The topic is probably worthwhile, however, (1) the current text is unusable and (2) anything useful on the topic can be discussed at Apostasy#In_Judaism. BigDT 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but merge any non-trivial info with the article on Apostasy as per BigDT. The ideas are interesting and I don't think they're as as POV as some others here. But it really belongs in a non-orphaned context. Interlingua 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Timothy Usher 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jammo (SM247) 23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sort of interesting but reads like OR Eluchil404 09:51, 13 June 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 of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 11:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elias Tsatsomoiros

Non-notable crackpot theorist. Author of one book published by a notorious extreme nationalist fringe organisation, promoting pseudo-theories about history of Greek language. No discernible impact outside those circles. See Talk:Elias Tsatsomoiros for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the article contains" "Tsatsomoiros' work has been ignored by mainstream scholars, as it is completely inconsistent with everything that is known about languages and alphabets in general". In other words there are no sources to show the notability of this work and therefore of its author. Gwernol 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gwernol--Aldux 16:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable crackpot. --Macrakis 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But a suggestion to the author: rewrite this (make it much shorter, remove the references to the specific words), search [18] categories for an article in which a reference to this proponent might fit. He seems to be an example of pseudolinguistics (no category yet) or pseudoarchaeology (existing category).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Interlingua (talk • contribs).
• Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete almost asserts it's own lack of notability. Kevin 00:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Does it really matter if Elias Tsatsomoiros is non-notable? The fact that he wrote something that provides an unorthodox interpretation of how the Greek alphabet works should nonetheless have its place in Wikipedia. If "mainstream" academia deems Tsatsomoiros' work as "non-notable", then state it in the article (or put such a statement in parentheses). Besides, you cannot say that you want to "Free the Knowledge of the World" and at the same time repress something that people should know about. Let readers decide if Tsatsomoiros is "fringy" or not. Deucalionite 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this "something that people should know about"? Should Wikipedia be a forum for every crackpot idea that practically nobody takes seriously, and hardly anyone even notices? Fan1967 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Look Fan1967, this article only provides an unorthodox interpretation of the Greek alphabet. Yes, I know Tsatsomoiros is not much to look at in terms of credentials since not many people have noticed him. However, human perceptions should not get in the way when it comes to promoting knowledge. Granted there are many non-notable people who have extremely non-realistic ideas that deserve to be dismissed. However, there are also many non-notable people with interestingly rational, yet unorthodox, ideas that deserve to be noted even if mainstream academia might be hesitant to accept them. It is all about knowing how to filter things. Generalizing everyone into one big "pseudoscience" group could very well marginalize intelligent people who have something interesting to say, but just don't have a big enough "voice" to be heard by everyone else. Please do not assume that I am supporting this article just because Elias Tsatsomoiros is Greek. I only support him because I respect people who provide unorthodox ideas that could have some application to our current knowledge about things. Tsatsomoiros' work is not necessarily based on "DaVinci Code" material if you get my drift. Believe me, I have met my fair share of outrageously asinine Greek ideas. Based on the comparison tests I have conducted a while back, the number of really really crazy Greek ideas are not that numerous. Interesting stuff. Anyway, I still maintain my position to keep this article. I hope others understand that people (including voters here) should, by now, be able to distinguish between "insanely unorthodox" individuals and "rationally unorthodox" individuals. If people can't do that, then they can just ask me and I will tell them the story straight (for only a nominal fee of $9.95 a month; just kidding). Deucalionite 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to glance at this page and then decide if this guy really deserves a page. What's covered in the Wikipedia article seems among his saner theories. Fan1967 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Interesting article Fan1967. Though I have confronted slightly more insane Greek ideas. Anyway, I appreciate you finding this website for me to read (never knew it existed, plus I learned the Greek word for "fraud"). Here is an idea to help solve any potential problems with the Tsatsomoiros article. I suggest that Tsatsomoiros' ideas pertaining to the functions of the Greek alphabet be preserved and any other theories deemed "insane" either be completely dismissed or relegated to a separate section in the article. The website you provided truly presents some outlandishly "unorthodox" theories. I will not lie to you, these theories are truly interesting (who knows, maybe they are true to some extent). However, for the time being, such theories are very difficult to validate scientifically. Specifically, it is difficult to prove if a northern Greek territory was the first land to have appeared from an ocean-covered planet Earth 140 million years ago (whatever happened to Pangaea?). Without evidence, these theories are just theories. So, if you want to place these outlandishly theoretical theories in a separate section of the article, then go ahead (or if you want me to do that then tell me). If not, then ignore them. Your call. Deucalionite 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he's a crackpot; we certainly have tons of articles on crackpots. The problem is that he isn't a notable crackpot, and if we don't set standards for crackpots, then we'll end up with an article for everyone who's published a book (or even a blog) detailing how George Bush is controlled by a microchip implanted in his head by aliens from the planet Blugztrakh. So we only document the crackpots who have actually achieved coverage and notice of their beliefs, like the guy who says that Bush is actually a shape-shifting reptile. Tsatsomoiros pretty much fails on that score. Fan1967 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I understand where you are coming from Fan1967. Yet, I still think that notability is just not enough to really judge an article. Let me elaborate. Let's say there is an article that has some interestingly contributive information, but it is not noteworthy. What do you do? Do you delete it? No. Do you dismiss it entirely? No. So what course of action do you take? Analyze the content. Is the content interesting enough and applicable enough to academia that it deserve a place in Wikipedia irrespective of its lack of notability? If yes, then keep the content. If no, then delete. It is just not kosher to keep a notable article that does not contribute much to people's knowledge of things and delete an article that is ignored yet contains something constructive. See where I am getting at? Yes, there is a plethora of crackpots who are non-notable and Tsatsomoiros fits the bill. Yet, it would be a shame to ignore whatever insights he may have about the Greek alphabet. Say what you will of Tsatsomoiros, but his statements pertaining to each Greek letter possessing a "code" that would later help to form a logical Greek word helped me answer a lot of questions about the Greek alphabet's functionality and even its development. For instance, when Tsatsomoiros explained the dynamics of the Greek letter "Y" and what it represents, all of the words I commonly use in Greek just began to make sense (since I would always ask myself, "why do I say this Greek word specifically to explain a certain object or person?"). That is why I want Tsatsomoiros to stay. Deucalionite 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's the problem. You think that his theories actually may have value (I disagree), and therefore should be kept despite the fact that the entire academic world considers them not even worth acknowledging. We can't keep articles based on the personal value judgement of a Wikipedia editor. Notability is the only fair determining factor. Is it a widely accepted theory, or a widely discussed controversial theory, or even a widely rejected theory that generates a lot of discussion? If not, then we can't justify keeping it, when we routinely get rid of other theories of similar status. Fan1967 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I did not say that all of Tsatsomoiros' theories be kept. Interesting theories, yes. However, even I know where limits should be placed when it comes to making theories. Notability is not exactly as fair as you may think, because notability is a fickle and ever-changing concept (didn't I state this already?). What could be considered "mainstream" one day could be considered "fringy" the next. So, if an article is deemed "fringy" just because a large handful of "mainstream" academics say so, then what makes the content of the article so unworthy for people to look at? Content, content, content. The concept of compromise and content-analysis is essential in order to transcend academic politics. If the president of a prestigious group of academics deems certain content as "fringy" after the previous president deemed the same content as "mainstream", then what do you do? You have to truly and honestly think about these things. Academia is not as "objective" as one may think, which makes notions of "fairness" very relative. Such concepts have to be substituted with notions of academic honesty and academic accountability. Again, look and analyze the content. See which parts are constructive and which ones are not. Though I admire your upholding of Wikipedia policy, you need to understand that policies can change and that policies are only enduring if they are both staunch and flexible in a dualistic fashion. This is an opportunity for you and Wikipedia policy to really show flexibility being that I already made a compromise in that I would only place certain theories made by Tstasomoiros. I know how sensitive Wikipedia is to the "fringiness" of the other theories that Tsatsomoiros made. I still stand with banners high supporting this article. Deucalionite 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at and analyzed the content. I'm 100% in agreement with the academic consensus on it. I could be more blunt in my assessment, but I think you get the drift. I certainly see absolutely nothing here to make me want to ignore, or rewrite, Wikipedia policies in order to keep it. Fan1967 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at and analyzed the content too. I'm 100% in agreement with social reality (academia is not based only on notable things). I too could be more honest in my assessment, but I think you understand where I am coming from. I certainly see something here that does make me want to uphold this article (even if that something is deemed "fringy" by academic consensus). The statements I just made were not meant to offend you. Their purpose was to prove that anyone can state what you have just stated right now. Anyone. So much for Wikipedia being an "independent source". Did you know that academic consensus considered for a time that the planet was flat and that rocks never fell from the sky? Funny, don't you think? Wikipedia should not become the next Brittanica with Western European anal-retentiveness as its top characteristic ("Free the Knowledge of the World" indeed). People need to be exposed to individuals like Elias Tsatsomoiros in order for them to understand who is who irrespective of notability. Period. The ball is in your court my friend and I have yet to be convinced that this article with some, more or less, "sane" theories be removed. You said they were "saner" in comparison to the other theories in the website you provided and I agreed with you. Compromise anyone? Or is such a concept unusually novel to Wikipedia policy? Deucalionite 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an "independent source". It is a Tertiary source. And if you think you are insulting Wikipedia by saying it wants to be like Britannica, you're mistaken. That is, in fact, basically the goal. Fan1967 13:11, 17 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finger chux

Promotion of non-notable new product, one Google hit (company web site), no G-News hits. Quote from the article: "Unfortunately, finger chux are still in the early phases. There is not much information about them." Deprodded. Accurizer 11:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. These may become notable later, so the article could be recreated but only after the product and company gains some third party sources. Gwernol 12:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for advertising. --Coredesat 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Seems to be vanity/self promotion/spam. skorpion 00:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising of a non-notable product Kevin 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 23:26, 12 June 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph E. Yahuda

Non-notable crackpot theorist. Author of a single book, promoted by a notorious nationalist fringe website, no impact discernible elsewhere. Compare also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Tsatsomoiros for a similar case, created by the same editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article didn't have an afd tag on it. I just fixed it. Ydam 12:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Must have forgotten to press save after preview. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable nonsense. --Coredesat 12:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As non-notable as they come. Nobody ever took him seriously enough to attract any notice at all. Fan1967 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable crackpot. --Macrakis 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The author might want to edit this down to a few sentences and then add that to some already existing, stand-alone article on a notable topic. There is information here that might be of interest but not as an orphaned article. Interlingua 20:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. The book needs to have sold 5000 or more, and I don't see any evidence of that. Kevin 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. So nobody took Yahuda's work seriously. Does that mean that he should be completely ignored? Does that mean that every Wikipedian must prevent this so-called "bastard knowledge" from touching the pure minds that peer into this encyclopedia? The answer is obviously no. Articles should not be limited only to discussing the notable, the great, the glamorous and the mighty. By doing such a thing, Wikipedia is preventing itself from becoming a distinguishable source of knowledge. Besides, knowledge is knowledge irrespective of its status as notable or non-notable. Deucalionite 20:41, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 20:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christos Sariannidis

Non-notable person whose only claim to fame is that he accidentally stumbled over a prehistoric skull once. No other information about this person is available. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't appear to be notable by WP:BIO. The link provided hints that the accidental find was a breakthrough in palaeoanthropology. If true, the find might justify a mention on that article (I'm not qualified to judge)... but the finder doesn't seem to be a scientist, just someone who got lucky. The article really doesn't do itself any favours in this regard, and google wasn't much help. - Motor (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Thirteen unique google hits. Possibly worth a one sentence mention in an article on Archanthropus, but that article does not yet exist.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Motor; stumbling in a skull doesn't make him notable.--Aldux 17:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No excuse for having him here. --Macrakis 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. So what if Christos Sariannidis is non-notable. Notability, if anything, is an ever-changing and fluid concept. Case in point, people have been given awards post-humously meaning that they became notable after they died. Prior to becoming notable, they were either ignored or not taken very seriously by their "mainstream" contemporaries. I don't see why the article should be deleted just because Sariannidis discovered something by accident. There have been people who discovered things by accident and helped "mainstream" academia propel itself forward into new directions of research. Shouldn't these people deserve some credit even if it entails a one-sentence article? Deucalionite 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yes, that would be fine for a newspaper or an opinions piece or an essay or a blog or a book etc., but no matter how much this superficially resembles other online electronic media, this is an encyclopedia, which by its very nature is a third or even fourth source ideally relying on and synthesizing primary or secondary sources. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Quite frankly, I don't care if an encyclopedia is a tenth source that relies on tertiary sources to acquire information. Many people today who own computers utilize Google to acquire information. When you do a Google search on, say, an historical figure, a Wikipedia article is usually the first hit that appears. So, if someone were interested in Christos Sariannidis specifically, then he or she would type it in and find out that such an article exists. From there, the researcher discovers that there is more information that links Sariannidis to certain important events. What if there are people who know Sariannidis, but do not know much about the Petralona Cave? Sariannidis is just a stepping-stone for readers to learn more about Aris Poulianos, the Petralona Cave, the Petralona Man, etc. Overall, people should be able to access information as easily as possible with articles that serve as stepping-stones for further research. If a person removes a stepping-stone article just because it is "non-notable", then who is to stop such a person from doing the same thing to a "non-notable" article with well-researched content that deserves to be in Wikipedia? Remember, notability is not necessarily the only thing that defines an article's validity or importance. Deucalionite 15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The only reason anybody would ever search for information on Sariannidis, would be either because they already know about his role with the Petralona Cave, or because he was their grand-uncle. Nobody else would even know his name. In either case the article won't tell them anything new, and never will, because there simply isn't anything known about him except that he strolled into the cave on one sunny day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: We have no control over what Google will find. But you are of course free to publish information about Sariannidis in various other places on the Web, where Google will find it. For that matter, Google today finds (among other resources) http://www.aee.gr/english/6petrlona/40years/40years.html. For that matter, if there were an article on the Petralona cave discoveries in Wikipedia, it might be reasonable to mention Sariannidis there, and Google would find that, too. The only issue here is whether Sariannidis deserves his own article on Wikipedia, following Wikipedia rules (not your personal judgement). It is quite clear both from the wording of the rules and from the discussion here that he does not. --Macrakis 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. How do you know that? Are you a psychic? This is yet another reason why I do not take your statements seriously (failing to take me seriously in a previous discussion was the other reason). Unfortunately, you are missing the point Future Perfect. Deleting one stepping-stone article will lead people like you to go off and delete (or nominate for deletion) other "non-notable" articles that actually do have new information and are actually worthy content-wise. So, if you want to delete the Christos Sariannidis article (just so you can deliberately destroy one piece of work I created), then have a ball. However, I am afraid the concept of "checks-and-balances" does not exist within your methodologies, which is the only reason why I am usually adamant in preventing you specifically from going off and destroying my work (or asking others to do the destroying for you). Deucalionite 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Deucalionite, no one is trying to "destroy your work". But if you insist on systematically violating Wikipedia policy about notability, your edits will be reverted. You may be right, maybe in 2053 Sariannidis will be recognized as a major figure in 20th century archaeology, at which point Wikipedia should mention him. But until then, notability is not about what might be, but about what is. --Macrakis 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Sorry Macrakis, but when someone wikistalks me I have to assume the worst. I don't want to, but I am not given many options when big useless signs and rampant "wikifications" from a certain someone prevent me from correcting my mistakes (with help from honorable users). I like how you brand me as a "systematic violator of Wikipedia policy". It has a nice "mythologizing" effect to it (yes, fear me for I am god of the "violations underworld"; just kidding).

Anyway, writing articles about people should not be oriented on expecting them to be gloriously famous. Notability is about what "is" and what "could be" (not what "might be"). Example: I might be an engineer, but I could be a doctor. See the difference? The articles I write entail people who "could" be notable in some future time or "could" be rejected by "mainstream" academia for some interminable amount of time. However, to deem the people I write about as "might-be's" only ignores what they have accomplished already. This means that irrespective of whatever "mainstream" academia believes a scholar to be does not change the fact that the scholar conducted research, discovered artifacts, etc. Focus on just the facts until "mainstream" academia comes around to state, "Such and such academic is a worthy person...blah, blah, blah".

Christos Sariannidis, you could state, did not accomplish much. So he "could" be a great discoverer in some future time, but to deem him as a "might be a great discoverer" already ignores the fact that he discovered something that did have an impact on archaeology. I know you want to uphold Wikipedia policy as best as you can. However, all policies are perfectly imperfect and imperfectly perfect. This means that Wikipedia policy should continue to maintain certain standards, but should also include rules where it distinguishes "non-notable" articles that are absolutely useless to readers and "non-notable" articles that are beneficial. If Wikipedia continues to marginalize "non-notable" articles with interesting and well-researched information, then the encyclopedia will only exacerbate even moderate users who only want to contribute and help readers become more aware of certain events/people.

If you want to delete the Sariannidis article, then go ahead. However, I have yet to acquire a guarantee from anyone that a system of "checks-and-balances" be implemented to prevent people from deciding that my articles deserve to be deleted just because they lack glitter and glamor. Once I am given a guarantee (from editors, administrators, whatever) that the rampant "must delete" and "must hinder" campaigns on my work stop, then I will be fine in allowing one of my articles to fall gracefully. This is not extortion. This is not "wikiterrorism." This is not anti-Wiki ranting and raving (though I have done that already). This is not a soapbox. Finally, this is not an insistence on my part to "violate Wikipedia policy". This is a simple request for a guarantee instead of being told that "everything will be fine" and then get backstabbed the next minute. If you understand the rudimentary dynamics of an honor code, then you will understand the meaning of my request. Deucalionite 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm afraid I have no idea who you are and frankly does it matter? When people vote to delete or keep - it's generally based upon an article - let's say someone does have a grudge against you - what about the rest of us? why would I care about your articles or you? I saw it on the delete page, it's not notable, thus I feel it should be deleted. --Charlesknight 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Simple logic only works to an extent my friend. Granted you are correct in that focus should be maintained on the article, but articles are created, deleted, modified, and updated by people. Therefore, articles are socially constructed (ask yourself, do you see articles creating themselves?). So, if you do not understand the social "politics" behind an article, then it becomes more difficult for you to communicate with people who you might need help from one day. Deucalionite 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Who cares about the politics behind an article? - as an editor, you should be asking yourself a)does this article add something to wikipedia and b) does it mean the requirements of wikipedia. In my view, that article does neither. Editors should not be swayed because "You might need help from people one day". --Charlesknight 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: sorry this is spilling over here. Deucalionite is upset because I've been on a rather systematic campaign of "cleaning up" behind him, which has involved three AfDs and a number of {copyvio} tags. He feels I'm stalking him, and I can even understand up to a point that he should be upset. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Didn't you state something about "ruthless purging campaigns"? Also, if you "understand" why I am upset, then why did you not listen to my simple request for you to leave me be? You, and everyone else, could have avoided all this. If you are truly a "civilized Wikipedian", then you would have kept an eye on me once in a while and not every ten seconds. Also, you have yet to admit that you implicitly deemed my statements as "trollish" on a previous discussion after we had an agreement of collaboration. To make a pact with me, and not take my statements seriously in a discussion is very rude. Now, I know the other voters here want to end this discussion as soon as possible (surprise, surprise, so do I). However, I have yet to receive a guarantee that Future Perfect stop stalking me and my work (also an apology would also be nice since being implicitly called a "troll" is very disrespectful). Still waiting. Deucalionite 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't appear to be notable by WP:BIO. --Charlesknight 20:29, 13 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Brennen

Non-notable skateboarder. Saying he is underrated is great, but who else says it? cholmes75 (chit chat) 11:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, unable to find any evidence of noteworthy awards, articles, etc. via Google. Accurizer 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Accurizer. --Coredesat 12:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete can't find info. --SeizureDog 13:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 32 unique google hits and nothing indicating notability. Neither of the two "videos" he was in are listed at IMDB nor is he. Note to closing admin: consider whether his entry on Street skateboarding should be removed if he is deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• don't deleteHe's listed with a large picture in December 2002 issue of Transworld Skateboarding, caption reading "Pat Brennen was one of the top street talents of the early 1990's". He was also the top street talent for Lance Mountain's company, The Firm. Powell Peralta was a major skate company and the Bones Brigade Video series ran all the way through to the year 2000. Anyone who was familiar with the skateboard scene then knows who he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nominay (talk • contribs).
• Oh, and Fuhghettaboutit, are you saying those videos don't exist? Try a web search of "Celebraty Tropical Fish" (and don't use google - you couldn't find "hamburger" at google) and look at the endless hits that come up for it as Powell Peralta Bones Brigade Video 9. Same with Eight. Many famous skaters are in those two videos, including Adam McNatt, Chris Senn, Tony Hawk, Mike Frazier, Colin McKay, but hey, maybe you haven't heard of them either. ~ --Nominay 1:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• One more thing Fuhghettaboutit ... open up any Transworld or Thrasher from the early '90's - he's in there. I suggest that unless you were in the skate scene back then, that you refrain from coming across as some authority on the subject here. I wrote much of the street skateboarding article, you want to just change the whole thing too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nominay (talk • contribs).

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 deleted as hoax and attack against Columbus (even though he's dead). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Bell

Delete. This article is obviously fiction, though humorous. A couple of google searches turn up few, unrelevant results. Spaceboy⁴⁹² 11:54, 11 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party Foul

Neologism; Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Deprodded. Accurizer 11:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, its not even a good definition of a slang word, I stll don't know what it means. Also unsourced so unverifiable. Gwernol 12:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 12:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Deletion most foul bad pun. But I'm tired and that's all that's on my mind. --SeizureDog 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't even a widely-used term. Ace of Sevens 13:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cute bit of slang, or maybe just an in-group pharse. But that's not enough for Wikipedia. Interlingua 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Besides, I've never heard it used, and if it's used in my area, I definitely would have heard it. Grandmasterka 19:44, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satan's Mother

Definition; no sources for over half a year; inappropriate. Might want to jump over and delete the French article as well. Found as random article. Additionally, Little Satan follows same logic. SeizureDog 12:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. --Coredesat 12:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RicDod 13:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Another in an endless stream of definitions/neologisms.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Satan's Mother as A1 - no context. Delete Little Satan as there are plenty of g-hits, but no single definition. Some hits are in reference to a disobedient kid as a "little satan". Some are in reference to a particular ally of the US (whereas the US is the Great Satan). As one user pointed out in another AFD - and this would make a great essay - if ten people have stupid uncles that they refer to as "my stupid uncle", that doesn't mean that the phrase "my stupid uncle" deserves to have a Wikipedia article. BigDT 16:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Little Satan now has its own AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Satan. Because there are separate issues to consider for the two and because Little Satan was not originally tagged with {{afd1}}, I felt it would be appropriate to split them.BigDT 16:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The author might add this one line bit of info to the article on Great Satan as the latter does meet notability criteria. Interlingua 20:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary (which is giving this term the benefit of the doubt, even so). Ted 23:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep These are important terms used in political discussions. --TrevorMay 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no context. --CharlotteWebb 14:50, 15 June 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 of the debate was delete. Joyous! | Talk 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DS Domain

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

nn web forum, fails WP:WEB. Delete Oldelpaso 12:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no invisionfree board should be an article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeizureDog (talk • contribs).
• Delete. Per the board's statistics counter: "We have 121 registered members." --Fuhghettaboutit 13:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB Adambiswanger1 14:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fuhghettaboutit's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a totally free forum which only has 121 members is certainly not notable. We have 121 registered members.--Andeh 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete I don't understand why there's any need to delete this. It's been around for over a year, so I'd call it notable. It also has a significant history that ties in with GameFAQs. (The PictoChat board to be specific.) We decided this would be a significant Wikipedia contribution, and it is important in some of the DS circles on GameFAQs, WiTendoFi, and other prominent boards. Plus, I worked upwards of three hours to make this a proper article. :( If there's some sort of change that you guys think I should make, I'll do it, but I don't want all my hard work to be for nothing, and I honestly think it's an interesting, informative, and important article for the DS community. --Gaming King 19:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB The article is not encyclopedic outside of the Nintendo Dual Screen community. --Starionwolf 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete Although it is true that it is a small forum, what Gaming King says is true: it has links with many very succesful forums, and, to quite a lot of people, is very important. Its age is quite impressive, and I don't see why 'No invisionfree board should be an article'. Is that a rule, or just your opinion? (Oh, and can I just say to the previous guy, since I'm such a pedant: DS is Developers' System, contrary to popular belief)--The last sheikah 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 121 members has to make it non-notable even among nintendo forums. Fan1967 21:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Regrettable Speedy Delete I feel bad about biting the newbie that created this (which is why I was hesitant to nominate it for AfD), but it really merits no value to the encyclopedia as a whole. Close this thing per WP:SNOW, please.-- The ikiroid  22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel sorry for the newbie too. --Starionwolf 00:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reality Check Due to the fact that this article will actually be linked to from the referring forum, it probably merits more value as a whole to the encyclopedia than the ever-important pages on ball-busting. It will be useful to those of the board, and while it is small, it still warrants more of a purpose than most articles here simply because someone will be looking at it. I also will not respect the opinions of the esteemed people above me who are using invalid HTML. Talk abut not worth mentioning: learn some web standards before you deem a board "useless," hmm? -Pojo—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.130.26 (talk • contribs) .

We do have standards. Read WP:WEB. You won't gain sympathy from people by arrogantly insulting their knowledge (or lack thereof) of the internet.-- The ikiroid  03:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons above, no encyclopedic value. DVD+ R/W 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not Delete This doesn't break any rules as I see it. This is another addition to Wikipedia, and the article itself is quite informative. -SB-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.216.172 (talk • contribs).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kunzite 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 18:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per nom. - Wickning1 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Compromise How about this? Since there's not complete agreement, I'll show you all the important history involved with this article. I'll make articles explaining the significance of all this-- articles that are also very important as standalones. They will be as follows: PictoQuest, PictoQuest (roleplaying board), Great PictoWar of '05, and WiTendoFi. I'll also edit in some important info to PictoChat. Once I'm done with all those articles, I think you'll see their importance as a whole. It's sort of like the dark underbelly of DS. It'll take me a while to do the articles, though, so just wait until they're done, then we can resume discussion. --Gaming King 20:42, 14 June 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 of the debate was delete and WP:BJAODN. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Syndrome

Funny page, but should be in WP:BJAODN RicDod 13:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable neologism for people who don't know how to use an "open in new window" function.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Adambiswanger1 14:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I added it to WP:BJAODN Move to WP:BJAODN. lol  :) --Starionwolf 19:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to WP:BJAODN. It's cute, it's real, but it's not yet ready for it's own article. Interlingua 20:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You can add it to BJAODN yourself if you feel like it. Punkmorten 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, puhleeeeze! This is a perfect example of WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 22:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete someone can add that to BJAODN, but I'm not doing it, there may be something similar there already. (And the article is incorrect. It describes the "WWW syndrome". A wiki syndrome is where the subject starts automatically looking for Edit links when they spot a typo or something.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:05, 14 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie Awareness Day

This seems like a very minor celebration and the article seems to have been created by the author of the 2006 page. RicDod 14:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This makes no claim to notability. Ace of Sevens 14:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete basically nonsense.--Andeh 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ... wow ... I feel dumber for having read that BigDT 16:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb dumb dumb --Charlesknight 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mildly interesting, but in a way appropriate for web-surfing not for an encyclopedia. To be an article, it would need more support that this has more followers than one or two bloggers. Interlingua 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, CSD G1 (non sense). Equendil Talk 20:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This holiday obviously exists, and people celebrate it--look at the old sites. It's reasonably notable on the Net--people mention it here and there. It's a meme, part of the background info of the web. Yes, I tried to start a page for the 2006 one. It flopped. I'm not sure how that matters--I did so long after i made the page here and YEARS after the old sites went up, but even if I hadn't the old site, and the celebration, still existed.--Mobius Soul 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. My birthday obviously exists too, and there's a few people who celebrate it. If it was notable on the net, you'd think google would return more than 14 hits for "Zombie Awareness Day" [19] including several wikipedia/answer.com pages. Come to think about it, my birthday might be more notable than that. Equendil Talk 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Password-protected forums. Sound files. images. People just telling their friends in real life. i admit I rather thought there'd be more mentions that that, but who's to say everyone talking about it used that exact phrasing?--Mobius Soul 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now, I'm inclined to believe this AfD page is where this has been most discussed ever. Equendil Talk 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• BRRAINSSSSS (sorry, Delete) - a real shame that this isn't more widely accepted given the average Joe's grief with undead related stress, but needs to be put down for now. Jammo (SM247) 23:41, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kota Bunga and kota bunga

Delete Ad for a "luxurious resort". - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom- pm_shef 16:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very pretty pics, but this is just on house. Not Wiki-worthy. Interlingua 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability, pretty picture though. Equendil Talk 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Kota Bunga and expand article. It is notable. Fg2 13:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What is it? If it's a luxury resort, as the article stated, does it meet WP:CORP? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promo. `'mikka (t) 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not note worthy. (MichaelJLowe 16:43, 16 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Stellar System

Per WP:HOLE, non-notability and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.P. System, which is the same damned thing under a different name JennyRad 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Redirect now, then Speedy Delete once the other article finishes its trek through the AFD process BigDT 17:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and the previous del discussion. - Motor (talk) 10:46, 12 June 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 of the debate was Speedy delete per A7 and author's request. Tijuana Brass^E@ 19:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Stanton Mooney

This is a vanity article. In violation of the rules of Wikipedia, I created this page as a joke for the benefit of my friends. I know, that is very wrong. The information in the article is non-notable and not verifiable. Please accept my sincere apologies for causing this mess. Marcusscotus1 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's the worst thing you'll ever end up doing here, I think you'll be okay. Tijuana Brass^E@ 19:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom - pm_shef 16:08, 11 June 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 of the debate was Keep, after the subject's notability was found during the AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilter Turan

This wikipedia page appears to be just one huge resume. The only informative sentence is the second one, in which he is described as an international relations professor in Turkey. He is a teacher at a moderately prominent Turkish university, and I see no reason why that is deserving of a wikipedia page. To gauge how famous he actually is I looked up the various books he published. The first one, which was authored with others, gets about two pages worth of hits, roughly 20. The other "book" he wrote is actually an unpublished master's essay, whose only Google hit comes from his own personal page. Once finding that page, I actually saw that his wikipedia page is actually a completely copy+paste job from his faculty information page from the Bigli University site. I think a page on wikipedia should be self-explanatory as to why the subject deserves a wikipedia page. I cannot find, however, any reason from his page which is just one big list taken from his own personal listing. The page was created and updated by the user Ankaram (whom some believe to be Sedat Laciner, someone who has used wikipedia to promote himself and his organizations. Turan is actually on the editorial board of Laciner's International Strategic Research Org.- an organization for which Laciner created a wikipedia page for and Ankaram helped to update- so it is not surprising that Laciner would have created such a page for Turan as well.) I think wikipedia is no place for resumes and self-promotion, this page should be taken down as it adds nothing to general knowledge and is just a copy+paste job from someone's personal site. Vartan84 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under db-bio - pm_shef 16:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy Userfy - I'm not sure db-bio is appropriate. The "article" (and I use the term loosely) does make an assertion of importance ... so the requirements for a vanity speedy delete would not seem to be met ... although I have no problem with an administrator just moving it to the userpage or deleting it quickly as WP:SNOW - BigDT 17:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article cleanup is surely needed but President/Rector of a University is notable. Possible motives of creator and guesses as to their identity are pure speculation. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sedat_Laciner may also be relevant Dlyons493 Talk 17:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, This needs cleanup for sure, but the subject is notable enough to be quoted by main stream media outside of Turkey (eg : CNN [20], FoxNews [21], CNN [22], BBC News [23] ...). Equendil Talk 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be careful to confuse being cited a few times over the years by various news outlets and being wikipedia-worthy. When you consider the huge number of articles churned out by any news source, CNN, BBC, etc., on an extremely large array of topics, with an average of one or two people being quoted in each one, the number of people quoted more than once by a news outlet over the years is likely to be very large. Especially when it comes to an obscure area like Turkish politics, they probably did some research and came up with his name as someone to quote in an article or two. Saying that "the subject is notable enough to be quoted by main stream media" would set a very broad prescedent as to who deserves a wikipedia page. Tons of otherwise non-famous people, often professors like Turan is, are asked to give their opinions in articles. One of my college professors was just the subject of an NPR interview and has published quite at least a couple "mainstream" books on US politics. However he is not one anyone would classify as famous and does not have his own page. Meanwhile a search for various books and articles listed on the Turan page turns up nothing notable about them. Many of them were from 20 or 30 years ago even. I see no strong evidence of his notable status. Vartan84 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete no convincing evidence of notability. Being occasionally asked for their opinion as an academic expert in the media doesn't prove notability. It proves that journalists know how to use websites and telephones to find a suitable expert when they need to. Bwithh 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Equendil. Article could use a slight overhaul. --JJay 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten as subject seems notable enough. But, if article remains in its current state, it should be deleted at the close of this AfD, as EXTREMELY poorly written, and either a copyvio or self-created. JeffBurdges 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The article cannot be kept in its present state. It is a verbatim copy of the information page on professor Turan at Istanbul Bilgi University's website: [24]. The subject itself is notable enough. Bilgi is not a "moderately prominent" Turkish university but one of the leading universities of Turkey. (Disclosure: some of my best friends were or are affiliated with this university.) And the rector is the highest academic official, like the president or chancellor of an American university. I also get about 98,400 Google hits. --Lambiam^Talk 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that rector part, that makes notability clear enough for a keep. Also I see that the article has been "fix" by deleting the copyvio information (all of it). So I now vote speedy keep. JeffBurdges 11:04, 15 June 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 of the debate was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mostafa Amar

Notability Questioned - 500 odd google searches here - written like a vanity article manchesterstudent 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete SM247 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to be able to read about pop stars from Egypt, especially when even less prominent pop stars from english speaking countries get articles on Wikipedia. The text here, though, should most definitely be cleaned up. -Karsten

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, No Guru 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I have renamed the AFD and pointed it to the article rather than to a redirect. BigDT 16:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs Cleanup and add references - when googling for "Mostafa Amar" rather than for "Moustafa amar", there are many more google hits and this person's music certainly seems to be notable elsewhere in the world. BigDT 16:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the article is ok, but it's uses the word best twice in the first paragraph. Delete unless that sort of style of writing is fixed. POV!--Andeh 17:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I know nothing about this guy but he seems to be notable and keeping the article is consistent with anti-systemic bias. We've got articles on failed American Idol contestants, and he seems far more important than they are, albeit not as well-known to most Americans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Interlingua (talk • contribs).
• Keep and major cleanup per above. This article reeks of POV. TheKillerAngel 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but apply a npov tag since its not currently neutral. JeffBurdges 12:57, 12 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] York Union

Delete There is no claim to notability, no reason for it to have an article. NN, vanity. pm_shef 16:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Student organizations which exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 21:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for total and abject failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers 22:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable --Starionwolf 03:44, 12 June 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 of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Hallford

This article is pure soapbox of a non-notable individual. Futhermore, I honestly believe the article was created by this individual personally for vanity having the username: Nealiios which obviously coincides with Neal Hallford. I nominate to Delete. OSU80 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as notability is borderline. Article reads as vanity but may be worthwhile after cleanup. Eddie.willers 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vanity or not, the guy actually has had his hand in quite a few notable computer game designs. (when I saw the name, I automatically went "Oh yeah, Betrayal at Krondor...") Definitely needs cleanup, but that's not what AfD is for. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. mmeinhart 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First off, OSU80 is trying to make it sound like he's (she's) somehow diligently burrowed out my secret identity. I'm not Batman. If I were trying to post this article annonymously, I wouldn't use "nealiios" as my screen name on Wikipedia. Give all of us some credit. Secondly, user OSU80 obviously has an attitude that computer game designers and writers don't merit the same kind of recognition as would be given any writer, musician, or film director. On pages for those individuals, you would expect to see listings of their works, as would be entirely appropriate. Today, the computer gaming industry generates more annually than Hollywood makes at the box-office, which makes it the most powerful force in popular culture. Nowhere on this page am I editorializing that I am the greatest game designer who ever lived, nor making any statements that cannot be factually backed up. I am not trying to sell anything to anyone. I am also not implying in any way, shape, or form that other game designers should not be accorded the very same kind of entries. If we allow a single individual like OSU80 to single-handedly decide that a person's work is "non-notable", then there is very little purpose in Wikipedia. This service is meant to provide people with information in one place, not to become a link factory that simply sends people flying all over the net to find the information they need. If simply following links elsewhere was the purpose, then there would be no point to Wikipedia. I could do the very same thing in Google. Don't let this one user decide what YOU can't see.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nealiios (talk • contribs) .
• Comment You have 27 edits total in Wikipedia's mainspace. Your only contributions are for yourself and the games you've helped produce/create/whatever. Writing about yourself is a Faux pas. You notice the article has been cleaned up again since I cleaned it up.

• • "The book he co-authored with his wife Jana, Swords & Circuitry: A Designer's Guide to Computer Role-Playing Games, has been adopted as a game development textbook at several colleges in the United States."

• • That sentence alone is called soapboxing, where's your reference? Perhaps you should try reading Wikipedia is not a Soapbox

• • Personally I don't believe writing articles about yourself is encyclopedic material. Hey what do you know, this guy agrees with me per here WP:AUTO. Thanks! OSU80 02:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep as per Wwwwolf, if Hallford's accomplishments can be re-written for neutrality. --Merovingian {T C @} 07:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wwwwolf. --mtz206 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Satan

More or less of a housekeeping nomination - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satan's Mother - the two articles were originally nominated together, but no AFD link was added to this article. Whereas "Satan's Mother" is basically something made up in school today, this one deserves at least to have its own AFD. BigDT 16:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• (Moving my comments from the other AFD) - Delete Little Satan as there are plenty of g-hits, but no single definition. Some hits are in reference to a disobedient kid as a "little satan". Some are in reference to a particular ally of the US (whereas the US is the Great Satan). As one user pointed out in another AFD - and this would make a great essay - if ten people have stupid uncles that they refer to as "my stupid uncle", that doesn't mean that the phrase "my stupid uncle" deserves to have a Wikipedia article. BigDT 16:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BigDT. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 22:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ted 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I mentioned in the other--SeizureDog 07:46, 12 June 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 of the debate was Speedy delete (reposted content). TigerShark 23:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vishnu Lankan

Article doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines for musicians. Dancter 16:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn bio/band. BJAODN also. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This seems like a prank or maybe gentle ribbing. Just being famous in your high school isn't reason enough for Wikipedia. It would work fine on MySpace, however. Interlingua 20:49, 11 June 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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muriel Bartol

Delete. Does not assert notability. Romanpoems

• Delete for failure to establish notability wrt WP:BIO. Google search on "Muriel Lorena Bartol Wolfensberger" returns 4 hits, of which 2 are wiki mirrors and the other 2 are unrelated to the subject. Eddie.willers 21:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• If deleted then the linked Nil Contemporary Art article should go also. BlueValour 03:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• "Muriel Bartol" artist gets 113 hits, most of which are self-mentions or wikipedia mirrors. Minimally notable, but hey, I get more hits than that, and I don't have (or deserve) a wikipedia ariticle. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:31, 12 June 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.