Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] March 15
- 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 SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. I'm closing this one early because the redirects will be useful and the prose has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Minor SSBM characters
I am nominating the following articles for deletion (ignore the top one, I forgot it was a redirect to the main SSBM article):
- Giga Bowser
- Fighting Wire Frames
- Crazy Hand
- Master Hand
- Sandbag (Smash Bros.)
- Female Wire Frames
- Fighting Polygons
All are extraordinarily short articles that have only appeared in one game. Giga Bowser hurts my eyes; it's as if someone copied it from a GameFAQs FAQ. I have merged all relevent information into List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters but would still like to see the articles deleted and recreated as redirects, if recreated at all. - Hbdragon88 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect all, optionally speedily, and discourage recreation. I've added Female Wire Frames to the list. Nifboy 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Edit: and Fighting Polygons, from SSB. Nifboy 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect all of them. Since the Fighting Polygons only exist in SSB, maybe we should change the list to List of Super Smash Bros. characters? BryanG 06:00, 15 March 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 REDIRECT to Self-fashioning. My British English would have the hyphen, so that's where I'll redirect to, but it's not important. The two articles are essentially identical, and it looks like someone just didn't know how to make a redirect. -Splashtalk 18:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Self fashioning
Delete original research without references. No major edits in 11 months.--Porturology 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with Self-fashioning on the basis that it appears to be an actual Renaissance-era practice.[1] There need to be more citations, however, but the term appears notable and historical. Aplomado - UTC 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (edit conflict) It needs work and references, but I find a number of references that seem to verify what the article says (one in King Lear even). – Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the other article. They both need a major rewrite. This was apparently an actual practice, but I know little more about it after reading the article. Carlo 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The most obvious merge and redirect I've seen in a while. Alba 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I was unaware of the other article. Both are poorly written but at least Self-fashioning is referenced. I think merge and redirect is the best solution.--Porturology 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Aplomado - Oscar Arias 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect since it is almost exactly the same article -- Astrokey44|talk 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect almost a duplicate. --Terence Ong 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and comment per above with merge, and just because there has been no major edits for 11 months isn't criteria for deletion Nick Catalano contrib talk 12:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Terence Ong. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge as above. ProhibitOnions 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. --AaronS 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect as above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Pileon merge/redirect... but definitely do not count this as a straight delete, the article has sources and it's an encyclopedic concept. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 22 March 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. Harro5 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iq content
Non-notable company. Prod removed seemingly due to misunderstanding of process. Hynca-Hooley 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete this shoddy brochure. Aplomado - UTC 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, don't need to vote on this one... – Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom, nn-company. Not sure what Speedy criteria it would fall under for speedy, since advertising isn't a CSD criteria, but delete nontheless. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:29, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Above Board
NN/Vanity Advertisement/press release for some schoolkids running a business. --Aim Here 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GOOG so hard my bum hurts. Not a single hit outside their own site. Needless to say, fails WP:CORP. Alba 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I thought my browser had redirected me to their website for a second or two. Per above. Colonel Tom 12:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Oscar Arias 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this brochure. Aplomado - UTC 01:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. --CrypticBacon 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - but I wonder if some of the above analysis could be slightly more polite to obvious new starters - seems like a genuine attempt even if it is a vanity advertisement? VirtualSteve 08:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nick Catalano contrib talk 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, uses first-person pronouns. JIP | Talk 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable school team. (aeropagitica) 15:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete What everyone's already said. dcandeto 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Mikker ... 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. However, as it seems to be a good-faith newbie article (although it's vanity advertising), I've left a welcome message on the page of User:Adav, who created it. ProhibitOnions 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom but AGF Funky Monkey 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Good idea, Funky Monkey. --AaronS 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. James 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Cool3 19:12, 19 March 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 delizzle. DS 05:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Foglerhymez
Appears to be an urban-music related hoax. No Google references could be found at all. OTOH, May be too "undaground" to verify! Hynca-Hooley 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Man says delete. Alba 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't establish its notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete absurd article. Turns up no Google hits and there's no way to verify it assuming it is "undaground" like the author insists. It's probably a hoax. Aplomado - UTC 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - HoaxCruft -Oscar Arias 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Alba. Awesome. the.crazy.russian vent here 03:03, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DOS.MASTER
A computer utility. Article has been speedied and reposted a couple of times, looks like consensus might be needed. Hynca-Hooley 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- "This is a significant utility due to the fact that it enabled previously ProDOS incompatible programs to be run under ProDOS." I'm blown away. Delete. Aplomado - UTC 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - unless people more versed in Apple II stuff chime in . -Oscar Arias 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This Google search gives only 109 results, and not all of those are even related to this program. Non-notable. -- Mithent 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ghesh guys, give me a chance to build this up. --PZ 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You guys sound like a bunch of deletionists. --Monton 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment This is the only thing ever posted by Monton -- Fan1967 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN software. deletionist vent here 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep GHits not relevant to something that was obsolete before the web was invented (when the card catalog was a file system and the search engine was your fingers). Based on the article, notable as part of computer history. Needs more encyclopedic style, maybe some comments and refs from old Apple magazines. Thatcher131 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Clarification If it can be expanded a bit more, keep as a separate article linked to the relevant Apple II articles. However, I would also support merging into Apple DOS. Thatcher131 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Thatcher.--ragesoss 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Thatcher. Or, at the least, merge it into the Apple DOS article. I don't know if it's all that notable, but those who find out about DOS.MASTER from the Apple DOS article can probably find documentation from the external links as needed. (And back in the day when I had an Apple II, hard drives were hideously expensive and limited in capacity to 20 MB or so. Ah, the days.) --Elkman - (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Apple DOS. I guess WP:SOFTWARE is useful here, eve if it's not official yet, and nothing in the article or this discussion convinces me its criteria are met. Sandstein 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Thatcher or else merge with Apple Dos. --Terence Ong 05:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into ProDOS, or weak keep; it's much more relevant to ProDOS than to Apple DOS. --moof 08:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or Keep and update - in that order as per Thatcher and others of that view. VirtualSteve 08:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Thatcher. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Thatcher and Elkman. Seems significant in the context of the history of personal computing. Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, looks OK. JIP | Talk 15:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — Wackymacs 17:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mirror Vax 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --Snargle 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as AIR it was important to the ][ community at the time. ProhibitOnions 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. --AaronS 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep please important for apple computers Yuckfoo 04:00, 16 March 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. JIP | Talk 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nowhere nowhere land
DELETE This work is not notable or interesting in anyway, is not the work of any prolific author(s) and is not available generally
- weak keep - actual published material, a number of google hits, interesting is subjective. -Oscar Arias 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable publication. Aplomado - UTC 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No amazon book rank, no non wikipedia or mirror site hits, nn MadCow257 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn book. --Terence Ong 05:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - agree no hits and not-notable. VirtualSteve 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Oscar Arias. It has a number og google hits. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity press publishing, NN. ProhibitOnions 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Oscar Arias and Siva1979. --AaronS 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable, [2]. -- infinity0 15:49, 19 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bayraktar Mini UAV
Vanity / advert. Originally prodded, but removed by another user because the owner of the company mentioned is of some notability. That may be true, but this page is pure advertisement, and after visiting the company website, I'm not convinced that this article should be kept. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the industry could comment. Tijuana Brass 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ad. the.crazy.russian vent here 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is a keep folks. I note that AFD tag has either been removed or not placed (which may not be appropriate) - but article has been rewritten to remove advertising. 47 specific google hits (not including 2 wiki hits) VirtualSteve 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per *Keep. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per original prod reason: "Advertisement submitted by the inventor on a device that no sources has ever heard about. Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines too numerous to list here. Please remove image and vanity edits to Unmanned aerial vehicle as well." --Perfecto 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- PS. As per talk page, submitter/inventor denies he is the noted executive, so Georgewilliamherbert's unprodding turns out wrong as well.
- Keep per VirtualSteve. Moe Aboulkheir 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Steve, Siva1979, Moe Aboulkheir, remove wikipedia mirrors and baykarmakina.com pages from the 47 hits -- guess how many are left? --Perfecto 15:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, while the rewrite did help it to appear more legit (which still doesn't address some of the problems), the second paragraph is a word for word copy from the company website. Tijuana Brass 16:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Steve, Siva1979, Moe Aboulkheir, remove wikipedia mirrors and baykarmakina.com pages from the 47 hits -- guess how many are left? --Perfecto 15:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We should delete every other UAV description by the same token since all are advertisements!! take a look at [3] or all other UAV entries.Poor 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: This newly-created user has no other edits.)
- Delete 47 google hits pretty much defines 'non-notable'.-AKMask 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dear commentators, I have looked to the other uav examples [4] and changed the article content. I am trying to make the necessary changes according to the comments. --Haluk 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please take a look at this uav [5] as well in which there is not any single reference. I did put references inside. --Haluk 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify a point here, you do not 'own' the article, you have released the text you contributed under the Gnu Free Documentation License, which gives everyone the expressed right to take, modify, use, distribute and even sell the text, so long as they also give those same rights to whoever ends up with it. -AKMask 21:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, AKMask, wrong expression, i erased that part.--Haluk 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- No worries at all :) Although it is considered good form not to delete things from these kinds of pages and strike them out instead. I know, I know, steep learning curve, but your adjusting remarkably well :) -AKMask 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Aladin's existence is verified by this Herald Tribune article. Several news outlets confirm that the German army bought 115 of them last year. This is what Wikipedia:Verifiability means. --Perfecto 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I consider aircraft in production, even UAVs, to be inherently notable. moink 09:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per VirtualSteve/Poor/moink. Lambiam 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable, but probably could be merged into a "list of UAVs" article or something. -- infinity0 15:51, 19 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Southland (band)
Band at the boundaries of WP:MUSIC notability. Article is a little promotional of the band also. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Extremely weak keep - Only if it can be proved that any of their music was on the TV show mentioned --Oscar Arias 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep more notable than alot of bands proposed here MadCow257 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I have tidied the article up. Cnwb 02:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per above. I added a stub tag. the.crazy.russian vent here 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep looks better now. --Terence Ong 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, current version looks inclusion worthy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I cannot see any reason for the removal of this article, especially since their music is on regular rotation on public radio (Though I see where you could argue the "major radio network" statement). -Hoekenheef 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it is a notable band Yuckfoo 04:00, 16 March 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. W.marsh 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Red Alert: A Path Beyond
This is not a large article and can easily be merged into the Battlefield 2 and Command and Conquer: Red Alert articles without having its own page.--Zxcvbnm 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - pretty crufty though -Oscar Arias 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete CrUfT the.crazy.russian vent here 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, merge only if absolutely necessary. --CrypticBacon 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as gamecruft. --Terence Ong 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, minor inproduction mod. Night Gyr 09:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Oarias. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to the main game article or the "list of battlefield mods" if there is such an article already. -- infinity0 15:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Don't merge, just get rid of it. - Hahnchen 06:21, 22 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adrian Sexton
Verbose, aggrandising article about a perhaps notable director of an entertainment company. Requires cleanup at the very least. Hynca-Hooley 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep - definately clean up needed --Oscar Arias 01:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep per Oscar. Bucketsofg 02:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Emphatic Delete. The man is not individually notable in any way. A mention of his name in the Lion's Gate article is more than enough. He's a VP and not the main man at his company. Note that we do not have any articles for his superiors, nor should we, unless they were individually notable for some reason. Oscar and Buckets, what is your rationale? the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Honestly, mostly gut feeling. I've seen much less notable people in wikipedia articles. At least he's a VP in the entertainment industry. -Oscar Arias 09:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oscar, gut feeling is not a criterion, thank God, in WP:N. If even you see a less notable person, do us all a favor, propose him for deletion. Let's get WP up to standard of citability in scholarly works and judicial opinions. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly, mostly gut feeling. I've seen much less notable people in wikipedia articles. At least he's a VP in the entertainment industry. -Oscar Arias 09:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, nontrivial industry figure, slash text heavily. Monicasdude 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Crzrussian. Moe Aboulkheir 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as Crazy argues. ProhibitOnions 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Russian Funky Monkey 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Russian --Ardenn 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Russian. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Russian Cursive 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Russian. Reyk 19:45, 20 March 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 to delete, merge/move discussion can be done on the article's talk page. --W.marsh 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intel processor confusion
This unfortunately-named article only causes confusion. List of Intel microprocessors is quite adequate. Ezeu 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I think this article falls under the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Aplomado - UTC 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete since it's poorly named and the individual processors have their own lists. (But, yes, Intel processor names are too confusing!)-- Mithent 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge (to the appropriate pages). I don't see lists for individual Intel microprocessor families (List of Intel microprocessors is higher-level than this page, and doesn't have all the detailed information that this page has), but, by analogy to List of AMD Athlon microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors, etc.; if the information, the information on this page should go into pages listing Pentium 4 or Netburst microprocessors, Pentium M microprocessors, Intel Core microprocessors, etc.. The "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" pages appear to use marketing names for "XXX", so, by analogy, I'd use marketing terms, so Xeons would be separate from Pentium 4's, although that then raises the question of whether a Pentium 4 is the same as a Pentium D (the D being a two-cores-on-a-package 4), whether a Yonah Intel Core is the same as a Pentium M, etc.. I wouldn't hold up the nuking of Intel processor confusion for a decision on that, though. "Intel processor confusion" is a bit of a bizarre and "un-encyclopedic" name, even if the information is useful. Guy Harris 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- If the information is useful, and its the name that is un-encyclopedic, perhaps a rename and cleanup will do. I am starting to doubt this AfD nomination. --Ezeu 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd say it's more than just the name; I assume the "confusion" is that there's a metric crapload of processors with "Pentium" in the name that have different characteristics and, sometimes, different microarchitectures (NetBurst in Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium EE, and some Xeon processors; Pentium M in some other processors, including the Yonah Intel Core microprocessors). If the goal is to clear up confusion about processors with "Pentium" in the name, it could list any such processors - perhaps we could start by renaming the page "List of Intel Pentium processors", and allow classic Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, etc. to be added to it by those sufficiently anal-retentive to care. :-) It wouldn't list the current Intel Core processors, though, as they're not Pentiums, nor would it list Celeron or Xeon processors - they'd have their own "list of" pages.
-
- We might want to add a column for the microarchitecture, given that Intel's used the same marketing name for processors with different microarchitectures (more so than AMD, who've used Athlon and Duron only for K7 processors, and have used Athlon 64, Opteron, and Turion only for K8 processors, although they've apparently used Sempron for both K7's and K8's). Guy Harris 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, if people think this page should simply be deleted (as opposed to renamed), would they say the same for the various "List of AMD XXX microprocessors" page? (I wouldn't argue if they said "yes", but if they said "no", I'd ask why a list of Pentiums is different from a list of Athlons.) Guy Harris 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Xeon page has a list of Xeon processors; by analogy to that, I'd merge the stuff about Pentium 4/D/EE from Intel processor confusion with the table on the Pentium 4 page, and move the stuff about Pentium M to a table on the Intel Core page (because it's only about Yonah). If the merging doesn't result in any change to the pages in question (because all the information from Intel processor confusion is already there), that amounts to Delete. Guy Harris 09:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not ... well ... this. Bucketsofg 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Some kind of article that disambiguates the variety of different chips a customer might encounter in a "Pentium" PC might be useful, but not this. Maybe divide into groups by characteristics that actually affect the consumer. Thatcher131 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. I like List of Intel microprocessors, but it's missing some info, that perhaps might not be of interest to the average consumer, but that will definitely interest the more advanced enthusiast. Thank you for reminding me how much I loathe Intel for naming four different processors "Celeron" and moving the Pentium 4 series to an all-digit nomenclature that doesn't mean a thing. ;) Usonophile 04:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into appropriate processor family pages if not present. -- Mithent 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Rename to "List of Intel Pentium processors" per above and tag with for expansion. Seems a shame to just toss this info away. As for merging into various articles, that breaks up the information so completely is as to constitute (unlikes most merges) an effective deletion. The whole point of this article is to collect info from various articles into one easy-to-access table. I'm assuming that people exist who would find this info useful. Herostratus 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Herostratus. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into List of Intel microprocessors. There it may have chance to be maintained, which obviously didn;t happne with current text. Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as above. Info is useful in the proper context. ProhibitOnions 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Pavel. Eivindspeak! 23:51, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Louis Bernacchi
Delete no established notablity. Kiwidude 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. He was a party member of a pretty notable expedition. Aplomado - UTC 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. JoshuaZ 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand as notable explorer. The Australian Dictionary of Biography has an article on him which I intend to use to expand this.Capitalistroadster 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Article has been duly expanded. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep per aplomado. Bucketsofg 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Newyorktimescrossword 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable. Cnwb 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. An important early explorer. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Look forward to Capitalistroadster's additions -- Samir (the scope) 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --CrypticBacon 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as expanded by Capitalistroadster, looks good. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable Funky Monkey 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep please imporant to australian history erasing makes no sense Yuckfoo 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable, why would anyone think otherwise? There are plenty of references to him. --Ishel99 07:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep. recipients of the Order of the British Empire and the Légion d'honneur are inherently notable. --Scott Davis Talk 08:10, 19 March 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/redirect. W.marsh 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Texan Tavern
Delete no established notablity. possible advertising. vanity. Kiwidude 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Robert Trimbole.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Binguyen Bucketsofg 02:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Robert Trimbole. Its notability such as it is relates to him. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Anything worth merging into Robert Trimbole is already there. --Bduke 03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Robert Trimbole. --Terence Ong 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Enough information about Robert Trimbole in article, do we need this tavern? Tha's his wife tavern! --MaNeMeBasat 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If anyone is interested enough they can include it the Robert Trimbole article. --Roisterer 08:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Binguyen. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge -- Ian ≡ talk 10:08, 22 March 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. Harro5 06:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Shondes
Band; does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, perhaps cultural importance can be argued; but only 66 Google hits suggest probably not. Hynca-Hooley 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No discography, no notability asserted, no reason to keep this article. Aplomado - UTC 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Bucketsofg 02:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as article does not assert notability. Capitalistroadster 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- And is now tagged as such. Speedy Delete the.crazy.russian vent here 03:27, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kids Eat Free
Prod removed. This is supposed to warrant its own encyclopedia article??? Delete! Hynca-Hooley 01:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The speediest of speedy deletes for this absurd article. Aplomado - UTC 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please read the guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Fg2 02:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Montco 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, don't even put it on wikitionary. Explains itself MadCow257 02:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Unlikely to grow past substub status. — TKD::Talk 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. Bucketsofg 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Can't imagine how anyone would find this useful. Cnwb 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 05:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete -- I'm sure someone somewhere could write a well-sourced dissertation on the business use of this concept. This will not help them, however. Grandmasterka 06:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can't we find something -- Restauraunt, maybe -- to merge this to? It feels like a minor section of an article, not an article itself. Alba 12:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete quite obviously. Mustafa Bevi 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, and note that its definition is absurd: "Kids Eat Free is a common term for a type of restaurant special that allows children to eat for free" (obviously, this is circular). However: "Kids Eat Free is a common term for a type of restaurant special that allows children to eat [...] at a reduced price, or to receive some other special item." Um, that would be Kids Don't Eat Free, otherwise better known as false advertising. Esquizombi 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nearly everything about this is discernable from the phrase itself. ---Dana 02:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is just not needed. Nigelthefish 20:01, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alexis Stodghill
Not listed on the IMDB. Very unpromising Google results.[6] Article says she appeared on two shows, but those credits would've been on the IMDB if true.
- Delete per nomination JackO'Lantern 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. She was probably an extra in the shows which is why she gets no credit. 51 Google hits and half of those were a different Alexis Stodghill. Montco 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable. Fan1967 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unless having the world's most injudicious stage parents qualifies you as notable. Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. Monicasdude 03:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn and per nom. --Terence Ong 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. Moe Aboulkheir 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- First 1. Fact is is that television actors are not put onto IMDB unless they have appeared in a movie as well. Read IMDB's acrticle on submission, MANY television actors are not on IMDB.
Second2. "Very Unpromising Google results" has nothing to do with the validity of the actress in question. Having peoples opinions written about you on websites has no validity if you were or were not appearing on a television show. I can say Ashton Kutcher is the worst actor in the world, it doesn't mean he hasn't been on tv.
Third 3. "A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable." So I guess Dakota Fanning shouldnt be on here either right?
Fourth 4. "Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. " Unless you know the family personally, or are their agent, then you really don't know, and you base your opinion on other people's opinions.
The point of Wikki is to list FACTS, not OPINIONS. If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little.
I actually am a CD that found this link typing her name into a search engine. She will be appearing with Alyssa Milano in a Humane Society Commercial in June. I know for a FACT because I am the one that cast her.
Vanity that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs).
-
- For the record, if you wrote that Ahston Kutcher was the worst actor in the world, it would turn up on a google search.... Oh, and Dakota Fanning is not exactly an extra.... JackO'Lantern 16:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding your opinion: "If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little." Wikipedia has a clearly stated policy (WP:V) that is exactly the opposite. If you cannot prove (or PROOVE) notability, there's no reason to assume it's true. All sorts of wannabe musicians, models, actors want articles here to promote themselves. An actor not listed in IMDB is suspect to say the least. Fan1967 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
JackO'Lantern , this may come as a surprise, but Dakata Fanning was in 6 independant movies before she "hit it big" AND 2 commercials ! (Do you think they just pulled her out of daycare?)
I suggest you go see the website in question, you'll see a girl in a picture with THE casting director for Palmetto Pointe, PRACTICING LINES.
The FACT is, she HAS been on TV, she HAS been in independant movies, she WILL be in more commercials.
The opinion (Yours) is, She's not good enough to list on Wikki because you don't think her being 10 years old and being in commercials counts as being on tv.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justadding (talk • contribs).
- I offer no opinion except that the person I've nominated for deletion has no IMDB entry and next to no Google results. It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject). Of course, at some point in time, Dakota Fanning would not have been notable enough to list. But that changed circa 2000. JackO'Lantern 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject)."
That's a damn realistic mannequin that they're using. It looks just like a little girl. My guess is the cameras are fake too. /end sarcasm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs).
-
-
- I would like to remind Justadding (talk • contribs) that he/she remember to sign in before posting, and sign all posts with 4 tildes. Posting from multiple accounts in an AfD debate is frowned upon. Thatcher131 20:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete per nom. Luvcraft 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not yet notable. Even if notable, not verifiable. Thatcher131 20:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Vanity Funky Monkey 22:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per funky monkey -- pm_shef 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Vanity User:Birdflu2006 User 65.184.17.216 claims to be both the CD that cast Alexis Stodghill AND her father, per comments above.
- Delete per nom, vanity. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I was what? Don't change shit around on this page to make it look like I'm saying stuff I'm not. That's just plain bullshit.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Julie Scardina
Another one of these CV/resumé-tinged possible vanity biographies of a living person. Here there is assertion of notability (appearances on Tonight Show). {{nn-bio}} and {{prod}} tags both removed. Personally vote weak keep, but something of a revamping of the article is needed if that is the outcome of the debate. Hynca-Hooley 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I removed the prod, but I agree that the article could use some NPOV work and she does scrape notability. IMDB lists eight appearances on the Tonight Show and three on Rosie O'Donnell, plus one more appearance elsewhere. (And that may not be a complete list, of course.) Google has 786 hits with her name in quotes. JRP 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep. Appears over and over on California-based TV talk shows, particularly Tonight/Leno as ringmaster for animal acts. Monicasdude 03:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not everyone on Tonight Show is notable, so if I appear on a guest show, then am I notable?? --Terence Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- A single appearance on a guest show, perhaps not, but this person has many appearances and on different shows, which seems to me indicates notability, so keep.Bondegezou 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Also, Wikipedia is not a search engine for occasional TV personalties. Brian G. Crawford 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak delete she was on the tv shows because of the animals rather than her being notable herself (im assuming) -- Astrokey44|talk 04:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Shes notable, appears on many TV shows as a special guest. Mike (T C) 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- If everyone that appears on guest shows, then we will have more articles. They must assert some notability. --Terence Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep borderline notability, but not vanity. Moe Aboulkheir 15:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Appearing on talk shows implies being interesting, not notable. Kuzaar 15:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Those appearances put her in the public eye. -- JJay 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; not vanity, certainly notable per her Leno appearances (after all, they don't just have anyone on The Tonight Show); perhaps not as well known as Jack Hanna but definitely in the same vein. --Kinu t/c 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - 733 Google hits is not notable. -- infinity0 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep She has been on a number of shows. However Astrokey44 makes a good point. Nigelthefish 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: As an aside, from a random sampling, I'm noting that a majority of the delete votes are coming from non-American editors, and the keeps are likewise coming from American editors. Just an observation, and I'm not sure of the pervasiveness or popularity of The Tonight Show in other countries, but systemic bias might need to be taken into account here, as it might be akin to me voting to delete someone who appears on a UK talk show that I don't watch regularly, about whose notability I might not have a full grasp. (Not an accusation toward anyone, of course, but simply an observation.) --Kinu t/c 21:07, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zukak
Suspected hoax. "Zukak" gives 800 google hits, mainly to Arab related material. "Noobquest" of "Noob Quest" of "Noob quest" all give less than 3000, which don't appear related.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Either unnotable or a hoax. Carlo 02:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. NN. At the very least, don't add stubs for characters in a game if we don't even have an article for the game, and this looks like a nn game. Fan1967 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability. This should be a CSD criterion for all types of articles, not just the people and bands covered under A7. the.crazy.russian vent here 03:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:25, 16 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project Duvessa
nn company. appears to be something which hasn't even started yet.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! —ERcheck @ 02:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: per above. Palnu 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Crystal ball. I predict it will never amount to anything. Fan1967 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nuke immediately. A very poorly written ad that hurts my eyes. Grandmasterka 06:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, company hasn't yet started, uses first-person pronouns. JIP | Talk 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:NOT. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:25, 16 March 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 (CSD A7). kingboyk 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Obidike
I put this up for speedy, but have copped some flak from the author, and some other editor, who has only about 10 edits, but has been around for one month. "Obidike" has 453 google hits, mostly to people in America, while "Obidike Eze" has only 10. The article also says dubious stuff like the last sentence, which smells of unverifiability.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi BL Nguyen, I'd just like to say that it's local folk lore. I don't know what a person living in australia would know about local folk lore. The story is most often spread by word of mouth, that's how I heard it and apparently someone else has too. The lots of edits are because I'm not a very good typer and i have a tendancy to post and reedit. I know it's a bad habit. Also i missed a couple of things off and added later. I'm a long time reader here, but Until recently I've only read, not contributed. Please don't judge me because of that. I ask you is it the case that you only dislike the article because of the slight mention of "yellow fever" since you are quite obviously asian from your vietnamese name. I'm not being racist here, its not my fault the fabled society was called that. As with all folk lore and legend, it is indeed mostly unverifyable, as are many things in life. I understand that technically it should be verifyable to be on wikipedia, but how is any mythology to be posted if there is no gray area. KX36 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I can assure you that my ethnicity has nothing to do with my nomination. I did not even notice anything from "yellow fever", and I can assure you that I am not in any way offended by the posting of the article. I check the Newpages for articles which are not encyclopedic as per WP:AFD, and in this case, WP:BIO. I do this regularly, and use AfD a lot, please see User:Blnguyen/AfD, which is a log of my activity on AfD. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice. A story about some local character who read a lot of comic books and is really good with a playstation controller? Oh, please. If it's "one of the least well known folk legends of recent history" I think it can stay that way. Fan1967 02:50, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Phantasm's End
A film that was never made - didn't even make it through pre-production. Prod tag removed by User:Mr. Popadopalis25. - Cnwb 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete so non-notable, my notes are in danger of spontaneous combustion. Alba 12:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Proposed film already mentioned in Phantasm page. Doesn't merit a seperate page. --Ricaud 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:32, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comics@MaiNada.Net
Advertisement. Does not look notable to me. Delete DMG413 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a new web2.0 project involving webcomics. Could be the start of new ways publishing comics online. With the coming of new portable devices, particulary with pen, touch screen and wireless connection. This could be a great solutions for amateurs with devices unable to load painter, paint shop pro or other paintng applications. As each and every on of those devices will have a browser, they will be able to draw a comic strip directly online whenever the want. Seems very relevant to me as in a medium term timeline.keep it Tiago.Cardoso 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Crystal Ball. WP is not to promote start-ups that haven't done anything yet. Fan1967 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a start-up. It was merly a project to test some technologies. Open Laszlo intereacting with Ruby On Rails. And instead of doing something meanless. I decided to create something nice, that could give some new contribute. It was done with good intentions, not to make money. And don't think that every web2.0 has to be from a startup. People do enjoy doing things their are paissoned about. keep it Tiago.Cardoso 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Call it a start-up or new project, doesn't matter. Neither does your passion or your intentions. It is not a judgement on the value of your project. The point is (a) you're new (b) basically nobody's ever heard of you. Wikipedia is not to promote unknowns, it is to document people or things that have already established notability. Fan1967 03:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think you should go and check List of webcomics, every single webcomics there as a dedicated article and I can assure you that there are some webcomics there that aren't in the scope of "things that have already established notability.". Think of this as another webcomics on that list. But with an innovation added. Tiago.Cardoso 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The road to Hell is paved with...never mind. Delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian G. Crawford (talk • contribs).
hmmm, check Alexa ranking to Arbit_Choudhury and check Alexa ranking to Comics@MaiNada.Net. It far to distante. And i'm about 800% better now then 1 month ago. It's growing. So, don't tell me Arbit_Choudhury has notability. Tiago.Cardoso
- Response Feel free to nominate Arbit_Choudhury for deletion. Still won't make your site notable. Fan1967 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Just one last comment, I do think you are not being very open to this. I do think this project, this webcomics deserves a article here in WP. If you ask, i'll make an honest effourd to improve it with your help, but saying that you want to delete it because I'm not knowen it a bit far fetched!.. It gives a bad sense of anti-democracy to the project and the user-coorperation. What do you think, want to help me or just want to take privelige of being more senior users ? Tiago.Cardoso
- Delete as nn. -- King of Hearts talk 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This isn't comics, this is Oekaki. NN either way, though. Nifboy 01:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Nifboy. -- Dragonfiend 05:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Nifboy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Nifboy. Tiago, instead of arguing about things that are irrelevant to this discussion, please acquaint yourself with WP:WEB, which is what we go by here. Even if the site were notable enough to have an article, this article would need a complete rewrite, as it is blatant advertisement. -- Zaron 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- PS- Zaron, you are right and some of your comments were the most accurate. I real do thing that the article isn't good as it is. I see some problems with it. My intention wasn't to make an AD, but I come like one.. Probably because I copy-paste some of the info in the site.. and that info is supposed to be not that impartial ;) I just didn't like the initial comments. Too much of pretentious and non-constructive comments. But that's just my opinion. I offered myself to re-write the article with help, like that link you shown. I'll take care of that later. This isn't that much of an important thing for now. Thanks anyway and sorry some more hard comments. :) Tiago.Cardoso
- 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. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] INpax
INPAX and "rapper" turn up exactly this at Google.[7] Clearly non-notable, vanity, etc. you name it, this article does it.
- Delete per nom. JackO'Lantern 02:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as totally nn. An 11-year-old wannabe rapper. Fan1967 02:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as utterly nn, borderline BJAODN material. dbtfztalk 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This probably should have been speedy deleted as a non-notable band. I put a db-band template up for his brother, Sloarhandler. Brian G. Crawford 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn, vanity. Bucketsofg 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, article is about a real person but does not assert importance or significance of the subject. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity nn Funky Monkey 22:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Has supposedly made two tapes. Dr. Dre supposedly thought about signing him but hasn't as yet. As yet, he doesn't meet our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete Poorly written vanity Nigelthefish 19:21, 20 March 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. JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Borderlands rpg
A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Listed along with authorised retail Star Trek games.--PatCheng 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as spamming. They even put their banner in, so it's obviously an ad. Brian G. Crawford 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Blatant ad for nn RPG. Fan1967 03:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn, adv. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn, ad. --Terence Ong 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wait a second. I went online and found a group that split off from us in the same category, called "Quadrant Delta" So I thought, oh, we'll that's cool, if they have a home here, then we should too..... Now why the heck are they okay, and we're not? There are also sites like UCIP up under Star Trek role-playing games that have been there for years. —This unsigned comment is by Truemper (talk • contribs) .
- You'd get a much better reception if the page wasn't blatant advertising, I expect, and made notability clearer (eg, noting the number of users, noting any media attention, more history, etc). --Fuzzie (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a Star Trek -related article. No, wait, I meant to say delete, advertisement for an RPG group. JIP | Talk 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrant Delta MLA 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well it's going back up if you delete it. I'll change the content to be more wiki-friendly, but there is no reason at all why we shouldn't have a place here. If you look at categories like: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction, they are ALL personal games. If there is something wrong with posting these kind of sites up then you may as well delete those entire categories, because that's exactly what they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truemper (talk • contribs).
- Delete nn Percy Snoodle 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable, blatant advertising/spam. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've been warned now that I had better not re-add my article, because admin can delete it on sight... but I will be re-adding it........ I'll fix up the content so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement, and instead gives more of a historical look at Trek based Role playing on the Internet, but I KNOW that Borderlands has a place here. If you look at the debate around Bravo-Fleet being on the Wiki, then that's all you need to hear to know that Borderlands belongs also. Bravo-Fleet is unique because of it's size, but Borderlands is more notable because of age. We started in 1993 - a full 5 years before Bravo Fleet, and well before any other documented Trek RPG out there. We have a history that is more relevant to gaming than Bravo Fleet, and if I get deleted after highlighting that history then I'm going to demand that every other RPG documented on Wikipedia be removed as well. I admit that the current article content isn't anything special, it was a cut and paste job from our homepage just to have something up, but we do have relevance, and I will be putting Borderlands back up again when I compile that information, despite threats......... Would it kill you to offer suggestions to FIX content? - Rather than just acting like freaking Wiki-Nazis. —This unsigned comment was added by Truemper (talk • contribs) .
- Comment. The problem isn't that the article is bad. The problem is that the fan club isn't notable enough as yet to have an article on Wikipedia. --
Rory09601:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)- So tell me, what makes the fan club notable?... Are you telling me that being the longest standing game on the Internet isn't notable enough?........ What is it about Bravo Fleet that makes it more notable, other than size? We intentionally chose a different niche than Bravo Fleet, we want quality, not quantity, so that disqualifies us? How about games like UCIP that have NO notability, but didn't get hammered by this crap?... Like I said before, the categories: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction are all full of less notable clubs than Borderlands..... That's all those categories have at all! I know I'm not supposed to be offended by the delete request, but how can I *not* be when so much clearly non-notable crap is all over the place, and a club that built itself off of our history in gaming gets put up for deletion, but isn't deleted because of popular support. We are the ancestry of these categories, we deserve a place here, but somehow we're the ones that get singled out for deletion and threatened not to try posting up better information.
- Comment. The problem isn't that the article is bad. The problem is that the fan club isn't notable enough as yet to have an article on Wikipedia. --
- 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 to delete, even discounting all unsigned comments (of which there were plenty), I still count 7 people wanting to keep, merge or redirect, and 10 people wanting to delete. That's still not a consensus to delete. A consensus about what to do with this information (keep as is, merge somewhere, redirect) can be reached on the article's talk page, as consensus for that specific decision is not evident from this AfD. W.marsh 22:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 27 Club
This article was already deleted once at Articles_for_deletion/27_Club. It is (still) only a neologism with no widespread outside use. --CrypticBacon 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP very intriguing and good idea, funny list, well done - actually it is rather a candidate for "featured articles". Kurt.
- KEEP it - as a fan of music I've always been strangely intrigued by the fact that so many of my favorite musicians died at 27. The fact that many other groups of people share this intrigue is reason enough to keep it. Obviously, not everyone will care, or find this article interesting, but that is not a reason to delete it.
- Keep as it is a popular concept. page bottom lists it as a "curse" and for the MTV generations it has just as much historical significance as Tecumseh's Curse, Kennedy Curse, Rebel Without a Cause Curse and the Superman Curse. If 27 Club is deleted, then the aforementioned should be deleted as well.
- KEEP -- 27 Club is a well-known phenomenon in American pop culture. The fact that the 'Big 4' 27 club members weren't just famous ... they were huuuuge; at the peak of their success. And now each is a rock icon. Heck, Wikipedia has an article about the myth of eating Pop Rocks while drinking soda pop as well as articles on Coprophilia (sexual arousal through feces) and Anal bleaching. KEEP THE 27 CLUB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Delete as it's a pointless list of musicians who died at age 27. Totally unnecessary. Aplomado - UTC 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I think a list of musicians who died young (whatever that is) would be quite interesting. We have List of deaths through alcohol, why not List of musicians who died young? It seems pointless to focus on a single age (that and the title smell slightly of OR) but a general list might be useful. Thatcher131 03:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, shortly after Cobain killed himself his mother was quoted as saying "I told him not to join that stupid club"[8], referring to (we presume) other notable musicians who died at 27, so the term does have somewhat of a historical basis, though weak. Through a Google search on "27 club"; I was able to find the term used in one reputable source, and then only as the title to the story. --CrypticBacon 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a recreated article that has already been deleted once. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. the BBC article where they mentioned "27 club" was just a catchy title rather than saying that such a club existed. not many relevant google hits [9]. Plus its already mentioned at 27 (number) -- Astrokey44|talk 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's actually a popular concept. Not many popular musicians die under 30, and the fact that most of their deaths happened at the same age is notable. Forever 27 is another known name for this. Manmonk 04:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)I should point out that Forever 27 gets around 85,000 hits through google. Manmonk 06:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)- I change my vote to Delete upon discovery of Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s. Manmonk 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Manmonk, your recent change of heart still does not negate the fact that (according to you) "Forever 27" receives 85,000 Google hits. I would be open to rename the article Forever 27 Club, but most definitely not a delete.
- It would be better off as Category:Musicians who died at 27. There's no reason for us to have an article that gives us no information other than that they died at 27. Manmonk 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn neologism. --Terence Ong 05:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. 50,700 hits for "27 club" [10] indicates some interest and the BBC article is a verifiable source. There is also an Asahi article [11]. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Only 511 Google hits for ("27 club" (hendrix | joplin | cobain | morrison)) [12] which eliminates many of the unrelated hits. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect, merging if necessary to 27 (number). It's mentioned there already and doesn't need another article. Night Gyr 10:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Night Gyr. Alba 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge the entire article into a seperate section of 27 (number) and redirect. Herostratus 15:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As noted above, it's a popular concept. I had heard it discussed several times before stumbling upon the wikipedia page. —thames 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's a rather fascinating phenomenon, in my opinion, I've always been aware of the strange fact that these artists all died at 27 before wikipedia came along. It's nice to have an entry for it for those who aren't already aware.
- Keep or Merge It's not pointless. I believe one of Wiki's goals is to become the most comprehensive encyclopedia around. Thus, we should all want it to contain as much information as possible, no matter how insignificant it might be to some. A small amount of google hits shouldn't be reason for deletion. Wikipedia would be that much more popular having something that isn't found on a major search engine. Most importantly, it does have a following within the music community, and anyone looking for it won't go to 27 (number) as their first thought. So, per Herostratus' comment, at the very least give it it's own section on 27 (number) with a redirect. --Wilhelm Screamer 15:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. incog 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Terrance, Brian and nom. Cursive 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- A merge into 27 (number), seems a bit odd as this article isn't really about the number 27. it is after all not math but music and most music fans wouldn't look at 27. The information in the article is certainly interesting trivia, the above mentioned articles do indicate a certain degree of use. Perhaps the term itself is somewhat obscure, so I propose recreating this article at Musicians who died at age 27 with redirects from 27 Club, Forever 27, etc. Then mention those as names for the "phenomenon" in the new article. So, I guess that constitutes a keep and rename vote. Cool3 00:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - cannot find notable examples of usage in this manner. -- infinity0 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is a concept of the fact that 3 (Kurt Cobain not included) of the most popular musical icons died in a timeframe so close together and at the same age. If you are going to delete this becuase it's "nonsense", go ahead and delete the articles for Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, and UFOs.
- Delete Pointless list. Nigelthefish 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ... The BBC, Salon.com [13] and Yahoo Music [14] have all used this terminology, in addition to Kurt Cobains own mother (and by some accounts, Cobain himself).
- This is another vote from User:206.208.110.32 Manmonk 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
KEEP Just the fact that there is so much discussion about this topic warrants it as valid. I am endlessly baffled, fascinated and shocked that all of these important icons died at age 27. It seems more than a coincidence sometimes and I am working on a reasearch project to investigate this more. PLEASE KEEP THIS ENTRY!
- This vote is User:Hilarie5000's only edit. --CrypticBacon 01:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There's 4 more votes at the very top of the page by possible sockpuppets with few, if any, edits at all. User:206.208.110.32 has made 2 votes. It should be known that AfD, and Wikipedia, is not a democracy and majority rule is not the deciding factor. Manmonk 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on Comment -- Wikipedia may not be a "majority rule" or "democracy." But Wikipedia is most definitely a microcosm of pure socialism much like an Amish community (not to be confused with Communism, Fascism or totalitarianism). People contribute their thoughts and ideas for public consumption, but just because someone may not care for the ideas of another that does not warrant the article as meaningless. For example, right now you probably have about 55% of the people that 'don't care for' George W. Bush, but does that mean his article on Wikipedia should be deleted? Should articles about God and Jesus be deleted because someone is an atheist, or Muslim, or Hindu? Wikipedia is a marketplace of ideas, but this article deletion policy is just a mere step away from censorship and book burning. Every article with a purpose -- no matter how ridiculous (Ape Escape 3 anyone?) -- deserves to be part of that free market exchange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.208.110.32 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I still don't see how this article could go past anything other than the paragraph that states they died at 27. Manmonk 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on Comment -- Wikipedia may not be a "majority rule" or "democracy." But Wikipedia is most definitely a microcosm of pure socialism much like an Amish community (not to be confused with Communism, Fascism or totalitarianism). People contribute their thoughts and ideas for public consumption, but just because someone may not care for the ideas of another that does not warrant the article as meaningless. For example, right now you probably have about 55% of the people that 'don't care for' George W. Bush, but does that mean his article on Wikipedia should be deleted? Should articles about God and Jesus be deleted because someone is an atheist, or Muslim, or Hindu? Wikipedia is a marketplace of ideas, but this article deletion policy is just a mere step away from censorship and book burning. Every article with a purpose -- no matter how ridiculous (Ape Escape 3 anyone?) -- deserves to be part of that free market exchange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.208.110.32 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
- I've already voted, but I feel that if this poster is available at Art.com [15] and is being mass produced, that indicates sufficient interest in the topic. 206.208.110.32
- 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. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ian Abrahams
Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. "TalkSPORT is national commercial sports radio station based in London broadcasting to the United Kingdom." Article subject is one of only 35 presenters for the station. 17 March 2006
- Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 03:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. "TalkSPORT is national commercial sports radio station based in London broadcasting to the United Kingdom." Article subject is one of only 35 presenters for the station. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 1 in 35 is hardly notable. JoshuaZ 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 06:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable biography. Politepunk 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, appears to meet minimal notability criteria. Monicasdude 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Funky Monkey 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Fuhghettaboutit. Jcuk 01:08, 16 March 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 that the article was deleted after five days on WP:PROD with tag still on page and no followup to talk page protest. —This unsigned comment is by The Epopt (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Scot Young Research
PRODded on March 10, as failing WP:CORP. The article's creator did not remove the tag, but did protest on the discussion page. Referring to AfD. Abstain. Joyous | Talk 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Bucketsofg 03:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ace hardware has two products. Wesclean has one. Campus facility maintenance has one. That's not much. Non notable. There's no use crying over spilt milk, mop this article up. delete ++Lar: t/c
- 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 recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Traveling Ham Agency
Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Traveling Ham Agency and Norwegian Barry; vanity by User:Travelinghamagency. -- TomPreuss 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. Why was our time wasted with this tripe again? Fan1967 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete -- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete --Terence Ong 05:59, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pick up lines
Cannot be considered an encyclopedic entry. Looks more like a wikiquote page than an wikipedia page. Sharpdust 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete not encyclopedic Bucketsofg 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep with cleanup tags, maybe delete all the examples unless they are referenced. surely pickup lines are notable, it even gets 79 google scholar and 589 google book search results -- Astrokey44|talk 05:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep and clean up per Astrokey. JoshuaZ 05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 06:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A culturally very notable phenomenon. Grandmasterka 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We definitely should have an article on this topic, but the long list of examples was not very useful—so I boldly removed it. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, move to Pick up line, as per WP:NAME. David Sneek 10:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Pick up line, well known phenomenon, looks like an article now that the long list of examples is gone (bound to be a never-ending fight to keep it gone too). Weregerbil 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Astrokey. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, move to "Pick up line", and tag for cleanup. Cultural phenomena, albeit minor. Herostratus 13:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a part of culture, and should definitely be considered a definition if other words like "google" can be called definitions.
- Keep. It's as legitimate as many other things that get entries. Carlo 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unencyclopedic Funky Monkey 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Astrokey. Don't understand how it would not be considered notable. --SecondSight 02:39, 18 March 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-ly delete. - brenneman{T}{L} 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Helga Wanglie
nn, borderline original reseaurch Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete a7 and tagged as such. --
Rory09603:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete, nn-bio. — Mar. 15, '06 [03:39] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Speedy Delete non-notable bio AdamJacobMuller 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The whole thing is copied word-for-word from the Bioethics article on Wikiversity: [16] Fan1967 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7. --Terence Ong 06:01, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] K.A. Maroufi-Collé
Non-notable biography, does not appear to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). No sources are cited, and just 34 Google hits for "Maroufi-Collé". Donald Albury(Talk) 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN, created by her 14-year-old son, Arthur Collé Necrypsys, who also created one on Dad, Ronald Collé. Sheeesh. Fan1967 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In checking his user page, I find he had also put up an autobigraphy of himself, mostly nonsense, which was userfied. Dad, originally User:Colle1, had also created an autobigraphy, which was userfied. When Arthur recreated that biography, Dad, now User:Profcolle helped out. Modest family. Fan1967 04:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious vanity, but I do think it's nice that a 14 year old took the time to write this about his mother. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity Funky Monkey 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, vanoty, WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:26, 16 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Erotic Engineering
Delete. I googled this term and found numerous different definitions for it, including transexual operations, sex toys, and mind control, but not the stated definition. The article is poorly written and is not neutral POV. Ricaud 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Same results as you using google, but I would note that excluding wikipedia, only 94 unique hits are found. So even if the term was accurate, it would appear non-notable. With these results, not a candidate for transwiki. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not notable or accurate; wikipedia is not the place for this misinformation. 68.32.34.152 04:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Terence Ong 06:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Inaccurate dictdef, pointless to redirect to prostitute as the neologism is not specific. (aeropagitica) 07:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. Also, you don't need a four-year college degree to practice it, unlike mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and software engineering. There isn't even any calculus involved. --Elkman - (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism misusing the term engineering. Pavel Vozenilek 17:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need another word for Prostitute. Somebody, maybe someone who has sex for money and doesn't like being called a "whore," seems to be throwing stuff at Wikipedia to see what sticks to create standing for a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete under WP:SMOKINGCRACK. No? Okay, just get rid of it as original research or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Haikupoet 04:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: Neologism completely divorced from the legal meaning of engineering. Seems to be just a definition of something like "sex worker advocacy". Peter Grey 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism stretching the meaning of "engineering". Herostratus 03:48, 19 March 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 as reposted AfD'd material. -- RHaworth 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Erotic Engineering
neologism, apparently made up term: Google search in comes up with less than 900 hits. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Withdraw, I've changed to Speedy delete, repost ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:07, 16 April 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 USERFY. JIP | Talk 11:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Marlon Abalos
Delete.Seems to be about a non-notable musician. Also clearly a vanity page (check the history). ConDemTalk 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy, just not notable enough yet, would work better as a user page -- Samir (the scope) 04:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User:Marlon Abalos redirects to this page, so userfication would seem quite appropriate. dbtfztalk 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy, benefit of the doubt.Bjones 04:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 06:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Wolf530 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy—nn, vanity. —GrantNeufeld 16:40, 17 March 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
[edit] WikiSonnet
No evidence of notability. "WikiSonnet" gets 0 Google hits. dbtfztalk 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace or a subpage of User:HiveMind: this is the WikiSonnet, not an article about the WikiSonnet. TimBentley 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedied, not an article. FreplySpang (talk) 04:34, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ASP Examples
Basically the same reasons given for Active Server Pages/Hints: This page has no point being in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide.[17] Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.[18] The article is full of original research. If that's not enough, this article is nothing more than a messy, poorly organized hodgepodge of random thoughts that are available in better form in many other places. Nova SS 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it violates a plethora of Wikipedia rules. The article does not explain itself in any way. Aplomado - UTC 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to WikiSource or WikiBooks. If the author has some helpful hints, then one of those projects would be more appropriate than Wikipedia. --Elkman - (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's pretty crappy even so, but transwiki to wikibooks and see if they can make heads or tails of it. Alba 12:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The content at ASP Examples is such garbage that "transwiki"-ing is of minimal value. Just skimming through it, I found a few outright incorrect statements and blatant original research. I strongly encourage votes to delete. Nova SS 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOT and instruction manual. And do not Transwiki, the amount of material here is such the overhead cost of doing that is not worth it. Herostratus 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. As above. --Ricaud 16:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, do not transwiki. There isn't enough worthwhile content for Wikibooks to do much with, and Wikibooks already has too many false starts like this one. Zetawoof 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. incog 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, could become worthy of a transwiki but is not as currently written. Cool3 02:20, 19 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aderack
Non notable bio of a writer for http://www.insertcredit.com/ Manmonk 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Sandstein 09:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. --Ricaud 16:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete probably could have been speedied under A1 or A7. Basically just a link to someone's personal website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:27, 16 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deep Stealth
either a neologism or dicdef; googling "deep stealth" vaginoplasty gets only 79 hits the second of which seems to contradict the article; "deep stealth" is used to refer to keeping many secrets other than transgender status ➥the Epopt 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If this article has any validity, the content belongs in Transgender, but as the Epopt says, it doesn't look that way. Fan1967 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 06:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's use as a term doesn't seem important at all, much less the material that is in the article. - Taxman Talk 07:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unverified and lack of citations or references that are required to show that this phrase is in common usage and not a neologism. (aeropagitica) 07:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Belongs as a sentence in another article, and inaccurate anyway (contrary to the above comments, however, it is a term in wide usage within the TS community (Google shows this to an extent), although I'm not going to bother trying to source it). --Fuzzie (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Transsexuality article contains an entire section labeled "Stealth" which includes a discussion of "deep stealth." It looks like that section is better written and clearer in meaning than this article. Maybe a redirect? Fan1967 17:16, 15 March 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. kingboyk 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beatle Barkers
This is another article identified as part of the cleanup drive at WP:Beatles. It's about a parody album performed by singing dogs. Sounds fun, but there's no assertion of and no apparent notability and - here's the killer for me - zero links from mainspace. kingboyk 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleague from the UK but I think this nom is at best a few days early. We slapped some tags on this one in hopes someone would turn up... also a google search turns up a fair number of references to this (most not very complimentary to be sure) from diverse places. I think it needs to be merged to some parody album collection point, with a redirect left, rather than deleted outright. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep if the album exists in real life, i think it should stay; just because it is bad or not linked is no reason to delete it. Perle 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note: User's 8th edit to Wikipedia, has 0 edits to mainspace. --kingboyk 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: The mere existance of an album or CD (since it is relatively easy to do low copy count production runs for not a lot of money, I could produce an album of my musings on the stylistic failings of dog music for 400 USD or so I think...) is not sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC. There has to be some evidence of sales through established outlets, or evidence of impact on others, or evidence via reviews, etc... In this case I think some of that evidence does exist (but is enough to make it barely notable, at best) which is why I suggested a merge. Colin's point that there is no article to merge TO is valid... so maybe this should be moved and other dog music articles then merged with this one? ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: isn't the point of this item more that it is Beatles-related rather than dog-music related? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- MERGE per User:Lar - Oarias 03:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Real album, prominent novelty record, pretty strong web presence for a bunch of dogs, and you can still buy their music (on compilations) at Barnes and Noble[19] and Amazon [20] and such. I'd go for a merge to an article about recorded animal performances, but I couldn't find one after a bit of looking, and it's not really helpful to suggest a merge without a destination in mind. It may not strictly meet WP:MUSIC, but I think this is one of those letter-of-the-law/spirit-of-the-law things. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a genuine item with a real connection to The Beatles' music, and therefore of potential interest to anyone researching The Beatles. Comment: This is what I don't understand about deletionists - they frequently advocate removal of material which is potentially of genuine interest to researchers on a topic, which is based on real and genuine sources, but may be a little obscure. Is there some merit in keeping Wikipedia to the bare minimum? If so, why are these huge bloated articles tolerated which deal with all sorts of subjects of fan-dom of little interest to anyone but the most obsessive fans of various print and electronic media? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- If it's so interesting, why is nobody linking to it?! 0 links. This has nothing to do with being a "deletionist" or not, it was an article that was found in Category:The Beatles as part of our cleanup drive and which, with zero links and no context, didn't seem to belong there. I felt it didn't belong at all, but that seems to be a minority opinion at the moment, which is cool. Removing excessive fandom is one thing we are trying to do, but if you look at our project you'll see it's quite a task. --kingboyk 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Lots of interesting things here are orphaned, largely because we're a work in progress. -Colin Kimbrell 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is SO much fandom stuff in Wikipedia, especially in things like Japanese manga and suchlike. No-one seems to do much about it, but if complaints about some much more encyclopedic articles are upheld, I guess I support moves to reduce clear fandom as being not NPOV... though I have to be careful - I am an inclusionist by inclination, heh heh! --SilverWings 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beatles-related deletions. -- kingboyk 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
King of Hearts talk 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's real, and reasonably notable (around 250 unique Google hits). dbtfztalk 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Beatles. Herostratus 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Of interest Funky Monkey 22:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- valid music release. I have the item on cassette myself (somewhere, it was a long time ago). - Longhair 22:55, 19 March 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. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ronald Collé
Husband of K.A. Maroufi-Collé, appears to be non-notable. Son has been adding biographies of the family. Fan1967 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep With all due respect, Terence Ong, the fact as to whether or not "spouse" was marked was irrelevent. There are multiple papers published by R Colle over the internet, all having sources. Go look, eh? Laura Bush? Ahhh, yes, notable for murder, no?--Necrypsys
- Delete, spouses are non-notable unless they are Laura Bush or Hilary Rodham Clinton. --Terence Ong 06:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Characterization as "spouse" was facetious action by nominator, choosing to list the one more likely to be considered non-notable first. We need to give scientists a fair shake with respect to Pokemon fictional characters, Bangladeshi cricketers, and Japanese actresses. It doesn't matter who listed, numerous publications in professional journals evident from Google search even without bio removed as copyvio, plus editor of scientific journal, NIST Journal of Research. Gene Nygaard 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per the professor test. Most of his papers have citation counts in the single digits to mid-teens, which is very respectable but not evidence that he is more highly regarded than the average professor in his field; however a couple of his articles have very high citation counts (unless there is more than one R Colle in the field of physics). Also journal editor. There should be enough to allow somone to do a better job of explaining importance. Thatcher131 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Question Is there any way you can test for citation in standards published by standards organizations? Google obviously gave a hit on a citation in an IEEE standard, but the website is a members site. Gene Nygaard 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't understand the question. Can you post the search url or explain more (on the article's talk page I guess). Thatcher131 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, appears to meet notability criteria for published work by significant margin. Monicasdude 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable, but needs a lot of help. Moe ε 02:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete:This is true, do your research. --Hawkeye216 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- The person who writes an article should write it in such a way that makes it clear why the subject should be in an article. Although sometimes people commenting on AfD do independent research to try and help problem articles, this is not a responsibility, it is a gift of our time and energy to the author and the project. Thatcher131 05:23, 19 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hypocritical paradox
This page does not describe a notable class of statements; it also has no sources that previous described such statements and is therefore original research. The page also fails to describe a paradox. By saying this, I do not mean that one of the apparently true possibilities is obviously false. In fact, there is only one possibility: The speaker hates himself. Superm401 - Talk 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It is not a paradox, not does it have any connection with philosophy. It's just an incongruity. I think it's fine if it's included in Wikipedia, but I'd want to verify whether 'hypocritical paradox' is actually the name comedians use for it. Peter Grey 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete'. Looks to be original research. Herostratus 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Googling didn't shed any light. I too think it's original research. --Ricaud 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per above Nigelthefish 19:18, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of ...For Dummies books
This list is better maintained by IDG Press. John Wiley & Sons, the current publisher. FreplySpang (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom- So long as to be infeasible, and not of much value in any case.--Sean Black (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:05Z
- Keep Well known books. --Masssiveego 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note - this is not a proposal to delete ...For Dummies, the summary article about this series of books. FreplySpang (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Eivind 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable, notable. -- Andy Saunders 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- A list is notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do we need to have Wikipedia for Dummies before it will be notable enough for you? -- Andy Saunders 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- A list is notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a publisher's list: let them maintain it. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Useful and well known Ozone 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Шизомби 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom & Sean Black. Lambiam 07:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The main article can link to the publisher's list; WP lists are useful when the information isn't more reliably collected elsewhere on the open web. Deborah-jl Talk 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - No real reason to remove, save a dislike for lists. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- You mean other than it's duplicative of an external link, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no, I guess not. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The For Dummies series is pretty famous, and I can see that this list can be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We have list pages for many things that also have summary articles. Why not this, unarguably notable, book series? Darcyj 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't see any good reason for being listcruft. --Terence Ong 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The notability of ...For Dummies doesn't directly translate to notability for a list of their products. This list is over-long and contains no encyclopedic content—unless you consider it encyclopedic to merely know that a book exists and has a title. If these books were notable in their own right, I might consider keeping it, but I can't really see the notability of Quicken 2000 for Windows For Dummies, etc. - Rynne 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I've become aware of The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran stub, if anyone wants to use that as a specific rebuttal to me. That being said, I think that stub is pretty NN in itself, and I refer to the lack of a List of The Complete Idiot's Guide to... books. - Rynne 16:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Isotope23 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep useful list MLA 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Useful in wat way exactly? This is a partial list of unknown currency and unproven accuracy, a mirror of a list fomr the publisher's website, it contains no links and no additional information. Linking to the identical list on the publisher's website gives links to synopses. We do not have articles on more than a handful of these books, so that won't happen here. It's functionally indistinguishable form the Yellow Pages, which WP:ISNOT. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this is not an indescriminate collection of information. It's an index to some popular books. Someone should linkify every entry. --Snargle 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Linkifying every entry will result in 1390 redlinks and 2 blue links to one-line stubs (JavaScript for Dummies, Java 2 for Dummies.- Rynne 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)- Comment: Snargle said linkify, not wikify. -- Andy Saunders 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. D'oh! Apologies, my mistake. A linkified list already exists on dummies.com, where this list was cut-and-pasted from. - Rynne 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Snargle said linkify, not wikify. -- Andy Saunders 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- A linkified list would be speedily delinkified per WP:SPAM and WP:EL, I reckon. Just zis Guy you know? 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Keep. Seems like encyclopedic info to me, so we should have it even if it is a duplicate of the publisher's list. --Allen 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unencyclopedic. We're not Amazon.com. --kingboyk 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There has to be some lower limit of notability. · rodii · 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete of course! Wikipedia is not a mirror of the publisher's catalogue, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, WP:NPOVUW - few if any other publishers or series have an entire cataloigue mirrored on Wikipedia, nor should they. There are new titles coming out all the time, and no more than a tiny fraction of those listed have articles. Anybody who wants the list of Dummies books can get it trivially easily from dummies.com or Wiley's website, authoritative and up-to-date sources, with no more effort and with considerably more useful results since they will be able to click through and read a synopsis. Honestly, there is no encyclopaedic content here at all! Just zis Guy you know? 23:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG. Arbusto 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rename List of Dummies' and Idiot's books or something similar and add titles by competing publishers, e.g. The Complete Idiot's Guide to.... The series is noteworthy and the lists are encyclopedic. They provide valuable references for people who want information. Fg2 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey, we could have the "complete idiot's guide to Wikipedia" - it could start with "copy and paste the content of your favourite web page into an article on Wikipedia!" Oh, wait , that must already exist, judging by the existence this article ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I see no reason for signalling which
O'Reillyinsert variable here books do not have articles. Dlyons493 Talk 01:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- O'Reilly is down the hall, it's For Dummies in here. · rodii · 02:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This is just an inferior copy of the entire dummies.com website. It's hopelessly unmaintainable, and honestly, not really that useful. Dummies is a huge organization and I think they can keep tabs on their books better than we ever could. I think a simple link to the book catalog from the main Dummies article would be good enough. Cyde Weys 04:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)- Delete per Cyde. Melchoir 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Would it be helpful if this became a list of topics covered by ...For Dummies books, as opposed to a list of the books? Andy Saunders 06:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting idea, but I don't think so. Such a list would really be an inferior version of Wikipedia:Browse, while still being unmaintainable and an advertisement. Melchoir 06:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advercruftlistspam. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Useless list that links to nothing. --Hetar 06:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Equivalent of List of books that have XYZ in their name. No encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Not at all equivalent to "List of books that have XYZ in their name". This is a well-known series. StarryEyes 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- On which we have an article. Melchoir 23:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as lists should contain significant and substantive information that would not otherwise be held in a category. It is a slightly more useful list than "List of books that have XYZ in their name" but not by much and not nearly enough to be Wikipedia material. Deizio 15:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm down with the notion that "...For Dummies books" is an important and notable publishing concept worthy of an article, and it has one, but a list like this is inherently unmaintainable. Delete per Freply, Sean, JzG, Kingboyk, Schizombie, Calton... and the usual cast
of deletionist scum.... who happen to be right in this case! ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)- Muah ha ha. FreplySpang (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- It was pointed out to me that "Deletionist scum" may be a bit too much of an inside joke... it's used in good fun, not pejoratively, and is about people I respect and like very much, but probably nevertheless isn't appropriate here since it gives the appearance of incivility and even, of an inner circle. Redacted. No change in my comment though. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Muah ha ha. FreplySpang (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Damn those rouge admins! Just zis Guy you know? 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror of John Wiley & Sons website. A category is more than sufficient for this. Stifle 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or trim and merge, as it is now because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this could be made a more encyclopedic list or a category, that would be much better. --Christopherlin 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP Or else delete every single article on wikipedia and close the site down. EVERYTHING we have on wikipedia is SOMEWHERE on the internet (or else why would we bother about how many google hits something has), so to say this is just a copy of xyz is ridiculous. This is a list of well known and verifiable books which are in and of themselves useful. Jcuk 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- ROFLMAO! I have a list of all the sizes of spanners, I'll create that article right away - every spanner is, after all, useful! Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- We'll need two spanner lists, actually, one for English and one for metric, plus redirects from the "list of wrenches" articles. Please get on this. · rodii · 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Spammers come in more than one size? What sizes do they span? ouch! Stop kicking me. Oh, you said spanners! Never mind. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Two lists? You jest! Metric, imperial a/f (SAE?), British Standard Whitworth, British Standard Pipe, British Standard Fine, BA, then there's six-point, twelve-point, open ended, ring, combi, surface drive. And that's just the cantilever toolbox, I have four more toolboxes... :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fake Keep. Excellent! All well known and verifiable tools which are in and of themselves useful! · rodii · 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- We'll need two spanner lists, actually, one for English and one for metric, plus redirects from the "list of wrenches" articles. Please get on this. · rodii · 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- ROFLMAO! I have a list of all the sizes of spanners, I'll create that article right away - every spanner is, after all, useful! Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - [[21]] Nothing is lost by keeping it, and it's kind of an interesting overview of the many different subjects covered by the series. I skimmed through it after reading the ...for Dummies article. We should put a note near the top saying that it's not an exhaustive or necessarily up-to-date list, then we don't have to worry about maintaining it as much. 134.173.95.35 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
King of Hearts talk 05:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG and most others. Sandstein 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete per JzG and others. Wikipedia is not an inventory list for a publisher. (I wouldn't object to a category however). JoshuaZ 05:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless list. No Guru 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is yet another pointless list. --BWD (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG and all others, obviously listcruft. --Terence Ong 06:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Just zis Guy you know?, but as a second choice/compromise, redirect to ...For Dummies, where readers will find a link to the publisher's web site and thus be able to find the equivalent of this article. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No reason to keep this list; the ...For Dummies article and the company's own website do a much better job, and we'll never have articles (I hope!) for all of these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio (the categorization and order of books is identical to that of the publisher and as listcruft (as eloquently described by JzG. --Karnesky 07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agathoclea 08:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm convinced by Users: Rynne and JzG and I'm keen to strike a minor blow against listcruft. Politepunk 09:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete a smaller list showing the more notable ones at ...For Dummies might be useful, but this is just a catalogue -- Astrokey44|talk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the list is already maintained by the publishers. It's not a copyright violation, but it's not encyclopaedic; WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Proto||type 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you think it is copyvio? If organized lists are copyrightable (there is some debate that they are), this is DEFINITELY (and verifiably) copy vio. --Karnesky 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as slightly not indiscriminate, strong categorize if deleted. youngamerican (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per listcruft/copyvio arguments stated by so many users above. IMHO does not add encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. Zunaid 13:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a list of notable books. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional Delete If there's an official list by the publisher or from verifiable sources and is kept up-to-date, then delete and make a link in the For Dummies main article.--Janarius 14:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. WP is not replacement for company website. Pavel Vozenilek 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep Keep only if Wikified. This series of books is notable, and just as commercial as the List of Ford vehicles --PZ 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Category: ...For Dummies books would be a more user-friendly way to find individual books' articles than a list of over 1300 redlinks. - Rynne 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep we have more inane lists that this; it's certainly verifiable and could be useful for some dummies, I suppose. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the books are notable and the list is useful. Carioca 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's pretty useful to know what "for dummy" books have been published, especially as the series is a bit of a cultural phenomenon. On a side note, I don't see why this was extended. No consensus= no consensus. It does not equal: keep voting for eternity until a pseudo consensus emerges. -- JJay 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yup, it sure is useful. There's a complete list on the publishers' website, which is up to date - and if you click the titles you get a synopsis. Our mirror is distinctly inferior in these respects. No doubt that's why they wrote WP:NOT a directory. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- As usual JzG makes some good points. However, I don't think we should delete articles because someone else out on the internet has produced a better version. If that's the case many, many articles here would have to go. The advantage is that we can be an impartial source that has no pecuniary interest in the material covered. Getting back to the Dummy series, I know that people really admire and love these books, kind of like Harry Potter. As such, I see little difference between this list and any of our many book lists that people can begin to peruse at List of lists of books. -- JJay 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- But it isn't just "someone out on the Internet" with a better version - more like, the publisher's list is a source, and our list is completely derivative of their list. I understand that we can be impartial in the article that describes the series, and that the publisher can't. But how can we be any more impartial than the publisher in producing a bare list of titles? FreplySpang (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It should be pretty obvious how we can be more impartial since we can draw from any source we want to compile the list. Also why do you think this list is condemned to remain "a bare list"? Why does Harry Potter have a list of Harry potter books? Couldn't the publisher do that better? Or for that matter, why don't we just leave it for a fan site? We can not allow our POVs to say one series of books merits a list and another one doesn't. -- JJay 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- A few points:
- Are you arguing that the publisher's listing of its own products is biased? I'd say that it's verifiable.
- Harry Potter is a completely different case, because each individual book is notable—each has topped best-seller lists, garnered critical praise in mass-media outlets, etc. The list of Harry Potter books (note: which is not on List of Harry Potter books), links to articles on notable subjects. With very rare exceptions, the only claim to notability most ...For Dummies books have is being a ...For Dummies book.
- Following, this is condemned to remain a bare list, for all intents, because the vast majority of its subjects of the list aren't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. It will be more useful to put any articles which may be created in a Category:...For Dummies books, rather than bury wikilinks between hundreds of list entries.
- I am unconvinced that this article will ever contain useful content in addition to the basic list of titles. And if it's just a list of titles, it serves Wikipedia better to link to the publishers site instead of maintaining them ourselves. - Rynne 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am not arguing anything. I have been responding to questions that were addressed to me. If I wanted to argue, which I most assuredly do not, I would be leaving comments for other people, as you have done. Furthermore, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about what books should be listed here based on any criteria you wish to apply. I have expressed my opinion on the matter and I strive not to let my POV influence my thinking. For the record, I have never read Harry Potter or a dummy book. As far as I know, they are both highly profitable, longstanding book series. They both probably sell a lot of copies and are widely read. In short, for me they are the same and as far as I am concerned we should have articles on every one of those dummy books, just like we do for Harry Potter or any other book series that people choose to add to the site. Going further, I would see no problem with having articles on every book ever published in every language since Gutenberg. That to me would be truly encyclopedic, and I apologize for using that truly meaningless word.-- JJay 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- A few points:
- As usual JzG makes some good points. However, I don't think we should delete articles because someone else out on the internet has produced a better version. If that's the case many, many articles here would have to go. The advantage is that we can be an impartial source that has no pecuniary interest in the material covered. Getting back to the Dummy series, I know that people really admire and love these books, kind of like Harry Potter. As such, I see little difference between this list and any of our many book lists that people can begin to peruse at List of lists of books. -- JJay 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, it sure is useful. There's a complete list on the publishers' website, which is up to date - and if you click the titles you get a synopsis. Our mirror is distinctly inferior in these respects. No doubt that's why they wrote WP:NOT a directory. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with JJay. The list is useful but long enough that it would clutter the main article, and the series is highly notable. ProhibitOnions 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- A couple of people have said this is "useful". I am really struggling to visualise this. Coiuld you give me an example of how it is useful please? Who would use it and for what purpose? Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Someone who was interested in the series of books? For the purpose of gaining information?....Isnt that what an encyclopædia is for? Jcuk 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- But why is that any more useful than the snazzy categorized list that the publisher provides? FreplySpang (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Someone who was interested in the series of books? For the purpose of gaining information?....Isnt that what an encyclopædia is for? Jcuk 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- A couple of people have said this is "useful". I am really struggling to visualise this. Coiuld you give me an example of how it is useful please? Who would use it and for what purpose? Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG Funky Monkey 22:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the books are notable and the list is useful. Imacomp 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep noteable books... dont' know if a list is necessarily necessary pm_shef 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- as tertiary sources Dummies books are not individually notable (except for the occasional screwup, like a dangerous misformula in Soapmaking for Dummies, or a major early title such as DOS for Dummies). I don't think Martin Yan considers Chinese Cooking for Dummies his magnum opus. Haikupoet 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep As much as I dislike the concept of these books (and am disturbed/disgusted by the percent of the populace willing to self-identify as "dummies"), you'd have a really hard time convincing me that this huge series of bestselling books isn't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- No one is claiming that ...For Dummies isn't notable as a series. But a list of every title in that series isn't notable, barring any notability received by a user thinking,"Wow, there sure are a lot of ...For Dummies books." - Rynne 14:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Useful reference. Bhoeble 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT and well reasoned arguments above. For those that say we should keep because we have even worse lists, one bad article does not justify another. We have an article on the series of books, and this isn't it. Friday (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per above. Tom Harrison Talk 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Let the publisher maintain it on their website. --Carnildo 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per above. ...For Dummies has a link to the publisher's website which "includes categorized lists of all titles", no good reason to try to maintain our own destined-to-become-quickly-out-of-date list. --Stormie 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay and others. Existence of information elsewhere on the Web is not a good reason to remove it from Wikipedia. The "...For Dummies" books are a very widely-known, widely-parodied series that I could certainly imagine people wondering if there is a "xxx for Dummies" or even just wanting to see what titles already exist. Certainly no more harmful than some of the Star Wars trivia we have here. Turnstep 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Also, I strongly object to another "relisting for better consensus" in other words "relist and hope we can get enough delete votes this time." No consensus = keep. Relisting is for when there are a small number of votes cast, no for when no specific supermajority is reached. Turnstep 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - I've changed my vote from delete. Some of the keep arguments on here are persuasive. And they make a good point: just because something is already somewhere else on the web doesn't mean it shouldn't also be on Wikipedia. Otherwise Wikipedia would have no content at all, because original research is explicitly frowned upon. --Cyde Weys 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This has to be a joke, right? Let people go to the publisher for this. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Question - If this list was created by copying the list on the publisher's website, then isn't this a copyright violation? If not, then how do we furnish verifiable proof that this list is accurate? (After all, there might have been a title Starting a Life of Crime for Dummies, which was quickly suppressed -- but copies sell on eBay for tens of thousands of dollars.) -- llywrch 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're swallowing the propaganda put out by the media conglomerates. Lots of things they're trying to make you think are copyright violations really aren't. How could a list of books possibly be a copyright violation?! That would pretty much make all library catalog systems illegal. It's in the publisher's best interests for lists of their books to be available, fer godssakes. Also, prior court findings on matters like these have been that facts themselves cannot be copyrighted. A mere list of what some corporation has published, which is a fact, can't be a copyright violation. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is not legal advice. But: Some think that specially ordered and categorized information is copyrightable. If this is the case, this IS a copyvio. Library catalog systems aren't copyvio, as they don't follow the same ordering/categorization as other lists. Also, they don't include/exclude the same things. IF such organized lists are copyrightable, this is definitely copyvio. There IS caselaw for copyrighting fairly mundane things. It is really grey. --Karnesky 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're swallowing the propaganda put out by the media conglomerates. Lots of things they're trying to make you think are copyright violations really aren't. How could a list of books possibly be a copyright violation?! That would pretty much make all library catalog systems illegal. It's in the publisher's best interests for lists of their books to be available, fer godssakes. Also, prior court findings on matters like these have been that facts themselves cannot be copyrighted. A mere list of what some corporation has published, which is a fact, can't be a copyright violation. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Gamaliel 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete don't understand the purpose of the list. Why would anyone need a list of this type of series? WP:NOT FloNight talk 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the list is useless as is. If it included ISDN numbers, I might change my vote to "Weak Keep." -- MisterHand 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and link to the up-to-date offsite list, where appropriate. — Mar. 17, '06 [01:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Delete - we are not an indiscriminate gathering of information. The books don't even have articles yet, signaling that this list isn't needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm generally pretty apathetic when it comes to deletions, but there is really little point to having a list such as this in an encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- notable series of books . Interestingstuffadder 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I have heard people on a number of occasions wonder out loud, "Is there a 'For Dummies' book about that?" That's sufficient to tell me that this list is something that has a place in an encyclopedia. --Michael Snow 04:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and wikify: each entry should at least be linked to an appropriate article and have an ISBN. The list should also be re-sorted to avoid simply duplicating the lists from the publisher. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Forgive me, but I really blanch at the idea of creating articles to justify the existance of a list; particularly creating 1300+ articles which will end up looking like the Java 2 for Dummies page. - Rynne 13:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - hmmm, maybe Phil was suggesting something less blanchworthy - linking to the related main topic. I.e., Java 2 for Dummies. FreplySpang (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I would blanch significantly less at that. - Rynne 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - hmmm, maybe Phil was suggesting something less blanchworthy - linking to the related main topic. I.e., Java 2 for Dummies. FreplySpang (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Forgive me, but I really blanch at the idea of creating articles to justify the existance of a list; particularly creating 1300+ articles which will end up looking like the Java 2 for Dummies page. - Rynne 13:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the Library of Congress Card Catalog. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The fact that an article of this size contains no wikilinks (blue or red) would alone strongly urge its deletion. If any substantial number of these books ever get their own articles, they would make an appropriate category, but a list is just... dumb. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, unfortunately. Unfortunately, because it is duplication of a list maintained by the publisher, and it is a long and ugly list, and it really should have at least ISBNs, and links to what articles already exist per Phil Boswell (don't create new ones, per Rynne, but there are a couple of them that are notable in their own right). But after thinking about it a couple of days --- is it a notable series? Yes, it certainly is, mentioned in hundreds if not thousands of sources. Do we keep lists of notable series? Yes, we certainly do. And what if the publisher decides, one day, to take the ones that have gone out of publication off their list? Or what if the publisher decides to sell the series to someone who won't maintain the list? Or if the publisher goes out of business? Will the series stop being notable? No. So, again, unfortunately, we should keep this list. GRuban 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm worried about slippery-slope policies: what are the guidelines for determining when a series is notable enough to warrant having a list of every single book it's contained? Should Wikipedia also maintain List of The Complete Idiot's Guide to... books? List of Cliffs Notes? List of Dover Publication books? List of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying books? List of Fodor's Travel Guides? Each of those, as a series, is arguably as notable as ...For Dummies. - Rynne 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hear hear. · rodii · 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Heh - funny that you should mention List of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying books - I'm a proud (card-carrying!) member of WP:RPG, and while not particularly a D&D specialist, I do try to make a list of supplements in the role-playing game articles I make. See James Bond 007 (role-playing game), Boot Hill (role-playing game), Justice, Inc. (role-playing game)... I find them a very valuable part of the article on the game itself. And yes, if there were a complete list of D&D books, that would absolutely be a very useful article, that I'd argue hard to keep. GRuban 22:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete with no prejudice towards any categories created in the future like this. As of right now, with only 2 articles on books, a category wouldn't be feasible, but in the future it may. As for this list, yes, ...For Dummies is notable, but that doesn't mean we need an unreadable list on every book in the series. Linking to the publisher's list from the main article is more than enough. --
Rory09621:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 23:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and per nom and basically all the other arguments as well Cursive 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No interesting information, no possibility of creating articles on all of them, useless list. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Continue to keep and clean it up by wikilinking to the appropriate topics (not create individual book articles), as well as a recommendation not to relist a 3rd time right away if there is still no consensus. Andy Saunders 12:02, 20 March 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, but I will Transwiki just in case. I am not sure that the redirect suggestion is a great idea given the generic title, as pointed out, and a redirect does discard the content. The merge isn't necessary either. The author's keep is not borne out by Special:Whatlinkshere/Federal recognition, leaving only one editor supporting retention of the content. -Splashtalk 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Federal recognition
Delete. This article's title is very ambiguous and it does nothing but directly quote legislation which has nothing to do with federal recognition of Indian tribes. This topic is given a more thorough treatment at Native_Americans_in_the_United_States. Please see talk page for further explanation. --BWD (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Terence Ong 06:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Native_Americans_in_the_United_States --Hetar 09:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Doesn't belong in Native_Americans_in_the_United_States either. Feezo (Talk) 10:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wikisourcce or delete: It's rather irrelevant there even so, but it is a source material (United States Code). If they don't want it, trash it; per the talk page, this is not what it is asserted on its face. Either way it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Alba 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just a copy of some laws, basically. Sending to Wikisource would cause more work than its worth, probably, as its so short. Herostratus 14:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Native_Americans_in_the_United_States per above. ProhibitOnions 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Most of the pages in the Indigineous project link to this page. This is the only concise and well defined reference for the requirements and definitions for "Federal Recognition". Pointing to a listing of tribes , some of which are not Federally recognized is ill advised. Also, bad faith nomination by an editor who is stalking all of my articles and either tagging to flagging them or vandalizing them User:BWD. If you remove the content, it will collapse a large number of articles. Waya sahoni 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, title too vague, content lacking, despite above claim, only 4 pages link to this. Rmhermen 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Suggest move to Federal recognition of Native Americans. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:47, 24 March 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. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Literature of J
Clearly self-promotional, see WP:NOT. Wouldn't seem to meet verifiability standards - just about some website no one's really written anything about. W.marsh 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. dbtfztalk 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 06:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Agathoclea 08:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. --Hetar 09:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. --Ricaud 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete V NN. ProhibitOnions 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity Funky Monkey 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:28, 16 March 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. --maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen Dare
Non-notable coffeehouse owner. The biography is trying to make the owner sound more important and have more impact than he really does. Also see articles Jimmy Nil Fishhawk, Ian Meares, and G. M. Palmer, which fail notability and should be deleted, in my opinion, along with the Stephen Dare page. I want to treat the Stephen Dare voting as if all four were up for deletion. Mike H. That's hot 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn-bio, smells like vanity to me. --Terence Ong 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, per nom.--Cúchullain t / c 07:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep It does rather quack like vanity, but it also seems that Mr Dare might have some claim to notability. He has off-wiki news articles mentioning his role in the regeneration of Jacksonville and the theatre company he founded has a wiki article. I'd like to see the article cleaned up, wikified and with cited sources to establish the notability of Mr Dare - then I'd probably be happy to keep. Politepunk 09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I lived in Jacksonville; believe me, he has not singlehandedly regenerated the 12th largest city in the country. Please reconsider your vote. Mike H. That's hot 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I currently live in Jacksonville and no one has ever claimed that he regenerated a city. I lived in Atlanta as well, but i wouldn't be able to comment authoritatively about anyone there either....point is the Jacksonville newspapers seems to think otherwise about the importance of his contribution. —This unsigned comment was added by 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs) .
- One interview in a business daily does not "importance" make. I've been in my hometown's mainstream newspaper many times; I don't deserve a Wikipedia entry. Mike H. That's hot 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- That would be true, but Jacksonville has five daily newspapers. The largest (the Times Union) lists 29 articles on Stephen Dare alone. None of those hits are included on the hundred or so google search hits. Also, the Times Union only includes articles written after '97, 10 years after his first article in that publication. (I looked it up) The second largest (The Jacksonville Business Journal) has 18 hits over the past three years, also not included in the gooogle search. The third largest, The Financial Daily Record has listed 10 articles either about or mentioning Dare over the past year. The Jacksonville Star, an African American daily newspaper has four articles about Mr. Dare.....the list goes on. I notice that the new links at the bottom of the page list Cincinatti as well. An assistant director at the theatre mentioned articles in the scrap book from Seattle, San Francisco, Atlanta and Indiana.---- which is even more widespread than the Pensacola News Journal.
- Keep Stephen Dare has multiple pages of reference when doing a simple google search. He doesn't own a coffeehouse, nor is he a restaurantuer by trade, although he owns and directs a dinner theatre. When I called him to inquire about the other individuals, he was unsure what the entry was about, and had never heard of 'syncretism'. Mr. Dare's page has been serially vandalized by a group of individuals who have bragged about their vandalism on their myspace pages. reference: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=887943. (scroll about midway down) When I asked about the individual, it turns out he was a disgruntled band promoter. I last updated his wiki article to flesh out his accomplishments, of which there are a number.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs).
-
- Look at this edit comparison [22], courtesy of 64.193.67.231 (talk • contribs) Thatcher131 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Should this AfD be split? The articles for the three (apparently quite non-notable) poets don't have AfD notices, and bundling them with Stephen Dare is somewhat random. Weregerbil 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, disregard previous, somehow I failed to notice the poet trio reference at the bottom of the article. Weregerbil 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Stephen Dare runs the Boomtown Theatre page, which was created by Stephendare (talk • contribs) last year. FWIW, Dare did not create a page for himself. The current page is probably 90% pure cowpies and you have to go back to very early edits to find a version that even comes close to looking like a verifiable article. The alternatives are to stub the article back to an early edit, verify it, then babysit it; or delete it. I'm leaning toward delete. Thatcher131 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Lexis/Nexis has several mentions in Jacksonville newspapers. Now who will babysit? Thatcher131 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, slash, discuss vanity aspects on talk page. Monicasdude 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy close as completely spoiled. This is a mess. Three WP:SNOW poets bundled with a train wreck of a possible vanity biography; a technically invalid AfD (as the co-nominated pages have not been approrpriately tagged per policy). Suggest re-list the principal target of AfD and the "poets" separately, speedily close this train wreck. Weregerbil 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- They're from the same part of Florida, supposedly follow the same "movement," yes, it is all related, and have a bit more civility, huh? Mike H. That's hot 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies for any perceived incivility. It just seems to me this is an AfD for three nn poets, weakly coupled with a person of unproven notability. WP:AFD suggests not bundling AfD's if not obviously connected; I humbly suggest no such obviousneess exists. No incivility meant, beg your pardon if some observed. Please assume good faith. Weregerbil 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kind of hard to assume good faith when you put an inline image of a trainwreck on this AFD. Practice what you preach. Mike H. That's hot 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies for any perceived incivility. It just seems to me this is an AfD for three nn poets, weakly coupled with a person of unproven notability. WP:AFD suggests not bundling AfD's if not obviously connected; I humbly suggest no such obviousneess exists. No incivility meant, beg your pardon if some observed. Please assume good faith. Weregerbil 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- They're from the same part of Florida, supposedly follow the same "movement," yes, it is all related, and have a bit more civility, huh? Mike H. That's hot 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Technically invalid AfD"? Oh dear god, the process wonks have won over again. You want a stupid little tag on each page? Fine, I'll go do that now. Of course, instead of moping about it, you could have done it yourself. We don't close AfDs for improper "filing" of a clerical nature, so don't be so picky. Don't bother opening whole new slanging matches for the things, just tag it and let this one run its course. Rob Church 21:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Took me 30 seconds. Rob Church 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you interpreted that as some kind of hostility. It just seemed to me it would be best to list clearly nn articles separately from one that just might not be not nn (though I have my reservations). And yes, the pages listed for AfD were not tagged as such. Sorry for the inconvenience, no hostility towards anyone intended! Is this something one is not allowed to mention? Weregerbil 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Took me 30 seconds. Rob Church 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. entirely non notable person and an obvious vanity article. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Article is full of non-notable babbling trying to justify itself as notable. --Fuzzie (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- sorry! that would be my fault! I tend to babble. How could I edit this more succinctly? suggestions would be very welcome!
-
- Delete - per nom --rogerd 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. --Roisterer 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep slash, discuss vanity aspects on talk page. Perhaps split into three sections, or two: theater and urban development. Many references off wiki. Delete nn poets, but w/multiple off wiki refs., no reason to delete subject. Carstenboswell 14:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Carstenboswell
- Note that User:Carstenboswell's only edits appear to have been this AfD at the time of writing. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- ? Haven't had anything to contribute authoritatively about---thanks!--I remember enjoying the Fireflies series when I lived in the Bay Area. This is a fascinating process though. Since it is my first time, I thought I would look up the rules, and found this: Also, please see this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion Policy regarding notability. Does this have a bearing? Carstenboswell 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell
-
- comment As a side note, I checked out the other profiles. One of them is the editor of an Orson Scott Card publication, *Strong Verse Poetry Magazine which would justify notability as well. I dont think that the fact that two of them are from Florida implies non notability. Reading the history, this AfD seems unfounded. Carstenboswell 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell
- Delete all per nom Cursive 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keepnotable, witty writer.ZornArmand 03:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)zornarmand
- Note: This is the user's sixth edit, all of which have been to AFD pages. Mike H. That's hot 03:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Can someone please tell me why previous posts are an issue? This seems to be limiting whether or not new people should post or vote at all. If the only votes that count are from long standing wikipedians, then why bother having any new people at all? Carstenboswell 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell.
-
- ahh...nevermind I just read the rules on articles for deletion....explained the whole thing.Carstenboswell 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Carstenboswell.
-
- 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. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asra Jabeen Syed
De-prodded by article creator. Well, this guy is an "Assistant Producer and co-host of the Texas Music Matters radio program on KUT 90.5 FM in Austin, TX at the University of Texas at Austin." Wikipedia is not a place to write about random radio hosts. Punkmorten 06:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 06:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 09:20, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] K-Nip
De-prodded by article creator. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Punkmorten 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as slang. --Terence Ong 06:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP is not a dictionary. Non-notable slang term. (aeropagitica) 11:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WINAD, WP:NFT. Alba 12:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not dictionary Funky Monkey 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT, nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:29, 16 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Gainesville Iguana
Delete Thoroughly non-notable political news pamphlet handed out in Gainesville, Florida. Cúchullain t / c 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Source or delete I'm not so certain it's non-notable if it's twenty years old. But it needs to be sourced or it's toast. Alba 12:51, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mechastrike
Doesn't seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MechZ. Werdna648T/C\@ 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn software. --Terence Ong 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — website seems to be offline as well. Feezo (Talk) 08:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:29, 16 March 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 Sydney Boys High School. Personally, I think merging some of the lead section is more than adequate, so that's what I'll do. -Splashtalk 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Islamic Society of Sydney Boys High
The society has had only one mention outside of the school and is not that greatly known within the school AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition, much of the information in the article is unverifiable, with only a small amount of information from transcript of the 7:30 Report. In addition, there would be less than 10 people who would know about the society and are not directly connected to the school. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable extracurricular club. --Ezeu 07:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn, school clubs are nn. --Terence Ong 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Islamic Society" is codeword for a mosque, ladies and gentlemen. Nonetheless Wikipedia would explode if we tried to list every single church, mosque, temple, etc. in the world.
Delete as nnActually, before saying "nn", maybe we should look at the referenced news reports? Most of the content may be unverifiable but a stub might survive. Alba 12:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete nn school group. Mentions on 7:30 report and Miranda Devine do not necessarily make notable--Porturology 15:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn school group; nn religious local chapter/parish/whatever. Carlossuarez46 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, NN and advocacy ("Both speakers impressed the audience present, despite campaigns run by senior students in the school to question the validity of Islamic law as a useful means by which to guide mankind's affairs."). ProhibitOnions 22:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Funky Monkey 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn..Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Sydney Boys High School given that it has received some attention. There is not enough to warrant a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per Capitalistroadster. Excellent suggestion. --Bduke 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge small verifiable parts, delete article JSIN 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- merge to Sydney Boys High School or keep please do not erase it Yuckfoo 01:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as I would think the media coverage might have been in response to the 2005 Sydney race riots, thus saying Sydney's people are not racist. I don't think the group itself has any notability, and it will open the main school article up for loads of vandalism/cruft from students. Harro5 10:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per Capitalistroadster -- Ian ≡ talk 10:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per Capitalistroadster. Bahn Mi 02:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nothing to merge. Doesn't seem to merit more than a reference to its title. See WP:NFT. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:48, 24 March 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 keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] William Johnson (author)
Not notable; vanity/advertising page for someone who wrote a book, with article written by his publisher. Joejamboree 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep author has written books with some notabily. Found on Amazon and Biblio.com. I do not beleve it is vanity, it was started by a user with good track history on wikipedia, and who often votes on AfDs. This is probably a bad faith nomination. --Ezeu 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Terence Ong 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Ezeu. note that this afd is nominators only edit -- Astrokey44|talk 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep no indication this is vanity or advertising; as Ezeu has stated, article author has a good track record here and by all indications this is a good faith attempt at starting a stub about William Johnson. I'm not completely convinced Mr. Johnson or his work are notable, but nom didn't really lay out an adequate argument for deletion.--Isotope23 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --PZ 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Monicasdude 20:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable Funky Monkey 23:00, 15 March 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: Speedily deleted as band vanity. - Mike Rosoft 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Japlaster
- Delete Never released an album, no sign of breakout notoriety. They got to the round of 16 in the Wolverhampton Battle of the Bands, but WP:MUSIC states you should at least "show" (that's second place, right?) No indication of out of the area touring or radio play. Richfife 07:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Ezeu 07:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn band. --Terence Ong 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:BAND violation - albums & singles released, notable members. (aeropagitica) 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Uncontroversial delete for me.Politepunk 09:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, subject fails to meet established WP:BAND guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, A7, as tagged. PJM 13:56, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Createthe solutions
Advertisement, no notability established (WP:CORP/WP:SOFTWARE). Contested PROD. Sandstein 08:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement. Article was created by Createthegroup. Feezo (Talk) 10:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Another company that thinks Wikipedia is an advertising medium instead of an encyclopedia. --Elkman - (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn company, ad. --Terence Ong 14:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ad Funky Monkey 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as stated above. porges 06:39, 17 March 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 closed. This way please. :) Mailer Diablo 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Fjords of Vestland
No articles in category. Mefjord was incorrectly placed in category, which might be the reason for the creation of the category. Nordby73 09:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The category may be related to Category:Fjords of Norway, but there seems to be other possibly more relevant and "sharp" sub-categories in there. --Nordby73 09:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't this belong in Categories for deletion? David Sneek 13:26, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Writers bloc
Delete: Non-notable student magazine. It's website is under development, and it just barely started being published. --Hetar 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The article's quality has come some way since I originally tagged it for speedy. But still: "The first issue was published on Wednesday 1st March, 2006." My crystal ball is cloudy. --Fuhghettaboutit 13:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- you simply cannot consider a student magazine to be encyclopediaic two weeks after it was first published. Compare Redbrick, the student newspaper of Birmingham University, which has been running for 70 years and only got an article on March 1. Also, the value of the article's content is dubious at best: "A police woman and a man dressed up as a Subway sandwich have been spotted reading the magazine also." I rest my case -- Gurch 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --BWD (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Funky Monkey 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. JoshuaZ 18:21, 16 March 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 but suggest continued discussion for a rename/merge be furtherd in the article talk. — xaosflux Talk 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π
Wikipedia is not the place for something that's just a proof. A proof originally written by someone else and available freely belongs in wikisource, math articles can (and probably should) contain proofs, but a proof on its own isn't an encyclopedia article, and the article isn't about the proof, it is the proof and little more. This is an old article, around since 2003 at least, and I think our standards have tightened since then in a way that it wouldn't pass muster if created today. Either merge into something, transwiki to somewhere more appropriate (though I can't think of one) or just delete. Night Gyr 09:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transfer to wikisource. --Hetar 09:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wikibooks obviously. Alba 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Mergewith π. 22/7 is a very common ersatz π, so it wouldn't be out of place there. And it's not very long. David Sneek 17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, as per others below. David Sneek 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)- Keep Pi is a very long article, and this is a reasonable subarticle. Septentrionalis 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete. why stop there? if we need a page to prove that 3.1429 is bigger than 3.1416 then why not Proof that four is bigger than three? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- strong delete per bl -- pm_shef 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep – The article is well-written and gives historical background. Obiously there are many numbers exceeding π, but 22/7 is perhaps the most-common approximation of π. —BenFrantzDale 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just "the most common approximation"; it's an early convergent in the continued fraction expansion of π. Michael Hardy 01:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Stong Keep. It is absurd to say a proof on its own is not an encyclopedia article. What about all of the other pages devoted mainly to mathematical proofs? Will you nominate ALL of them for deletion? What about ALL OF THE ARTICLES IN list of topics related to pi?? Should the ALL get merged into pi? That is absurd! Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be only for beginners. "Night Gyr", may I inquire about your experience with Wikipedia's mathematics articles? "Kiss the Lizard" very clumsily misses the point of this article. 22/7 is of course one of the earliest convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π. By contrast, those decimal expansions are rather arbitrary. "kiss the lizard", what is the nature and degree of your experience with Wikipedia mathematics articles? Michael Hardy 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Our mathematics articles contain proofs to enlighten and back up statements, not just to be a collection of proofs. The first line of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs is "This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of math texts." The fact that there's a particular proof out there may be mathematically interesting, but the proof alone does not constitute an encyclopedia article. There are other places for such raw texts, and I listed several above. Night Gyr 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- To enlighten is exactly what this article is obviously for! It's not merely proving a brute fact; the unusual simplicity and elegance of the integral and the startling result are enlightening and charming. It's really hard for me to see how anyone could have thought otherwise. Michael Hardy 02:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- And now someone who voted for deletion tells me that he never heard of a mathematical equation, theorem, proof, or the like being called "elegant"! Never! Is it too much to ask that people on Wikipedia who've hardly even heard of mathematics at all might realize that mathematicians on Wikipedia know something about the subject? Michael Hardy 02:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- To enlighten is exactly what this article is obviously for! It's not merely proving a brute fact; the unusual simplicity and elegance of the integral and the startling result are enlightening and charming. It's really hard for me to see how anyone could have thought otherwise. Michael Hardy 02:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Our mathematics articles contain proofs to enlighten and back up statements, not just to be a collection of proofs. The first line of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs is "This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of math texts." The fact that there's a particular proof out there may be mathematically interesting, but the proof alone does not constitute an encyclopedia article. There are other places for such raw texts, and I listed several above. Night Gyr 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I see nothing in WP:NOT that says it doesn't belong. It's not original research since it is verifiable. It is not in the list of indiscriminate information list (nowhere close actually). I see no policy or guideline that applies. Policies & guidelines aside, I think it should stay. Otherwise, there's a long list of articles to delete. Cburnett 02:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Move/Merge into a larger article on the fraction 22/7 - the proof should probably exist in Wikipedia somewhere, but I'm not sure if it deserves its own article. --AySz88^-^ 02:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Do not merge into Pi. As a last resort, merge as AySz88 suggested into 22/7. Fg2 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. Dysprosia 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, after Michael Hardy. Ryan Reich 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; possibly merge to 22/7, but this is an interesting, elementary and elegant result in diophantine approximation. If people don't understand why this holds more interest than a "proof that 4 exceeds 3" would, then they have failed to understand the article. Remember there was a time when people hadn't worked out the value of pi. Knowing that it's close to 22/7, but not exactly, might lead one to wonder whether 22/7 is an over-approximation or an under-approximation. This proof makes it clear that 22/7 is high, so the true value of pi is somewhere below it. Sure, we know now that pi=3.14159, approximately, but people had to work that out somehow. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- If that topic is the reason it's notable, why does neither article make reference to the other? Night Gyr 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. This article now links to Diophantine approximation, but I wouldn't say "that topic is the reason why it's notable". It's notable because pi is one of the most important numbers in mathematics, and methods of calculating it are therefore notable. There's not much sense linking from Diophantine approximation unless that article grows significantly and acquires a list of particluar methods of approximation, of which this is a kind of ad hoc one, as far as that goes. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This article does not violate any WP:NOT criteria IMHO. Might need a title change though and some more text to explain what is going on. --Midnighttonight 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep: π is not just any number, and many of the proofs connected with it often involve interesting mathematics. I'm not sure every such proof would justify a separate article, though. In particular the fact that π > 22/7 is not as significant as the fact that π is really, really close to 22/7. Peter Grey 07:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: does not violate WP:NOT; important and interesting derivation; merits its own article. Gandalf61 10:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Mathematical proofs can be notable and encyclopaedic. David | Talk 10:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --Kompik 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. --Saned 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep — only, I suggest renaming it "22/7 (number)". Lambiam 13:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and add GTBacchus' relevant comments to the article.Kwagle 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree that Pi is long, and this is a reasonable subarticle. If an article Approximations of π were to be created, it might be merged into that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Not all proofs are notable but this one certainly is. -- 127.*.*.1 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — an elegant proof of an elegant statement. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- And I disagree with any renaming, this article has the right name I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- I hardly need to say it now, but I consider this to be encyclopediaic, and the fact that it was created over two years ago and nobody has had a problem with it before suggests that it is unlikely to be suitable for deletion. Our 'standards', if we have any, are things like neutrality, verifiability, accuracy and so forth, none of which are violated by this article -- Gurch 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A notable proof is notable, obviously. Charles Matthews 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough for me. Doesn't need renaming. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above.--David.Mestel 18:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and add an overview of Archimedes proof. If the article were about that I don't think there would be a question of notability. Gazpacho 18:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reason for deleting this article --CheSudaka 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In the February 2006 issue of the American Mathematical Monthly on pages 156-151 we find "A Sequence of Polynomials for Approximating Arctangent" by Herbert A. Medina. Near the end of that article is says (verbatim):
-
- The results herein were stumbled upon after the author became intrigued by and curious about the fact that
-
- .....
- This fact is just the sort of thing one would expect people to find intriguing and curiosity-provoking. That's why it's notable. Michael Hardy 17:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not necessarily. Reflect on the statement "intriguing and curiosity-provoking facts are notable" for a while, and now imagine the articles this policy could defend. It's not a pretty sight.
- Off hand, I cannot think of any hypothetical articles that could be "intriguing and curiosity-provoking" but "not a pretty sight". By all means, tell me what you have in mind, if you can. Perhaps I should add to "intriguing and curiosity-provoking", that this article could lead to insights that in turn lead to further discoveries. People who see this argument often wonder if this is the first in a long sequence of integrals with a neat pattern, that correspond to the successive convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π, just as this corresponds to 22/7. Michael Hardy 00:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not necessarily. Reflect on the statement "intriguing and curiosity-provoking facts are notable" for a while, and now imagine the articles this policy could defend. It's not a pretty sight.
- I don't think anyone disputes that the fact that 22/7 is really close to π should be included in Wikipedia. Whether a property of an integral cast in proof form qualifies is another matter. And whether the dozens if not hundreds of equally intriguing mathematical curios should have articles is yet another.
- Then again, notability has never been a useful criterion on Wikipedia, and the "cui malo?" argument seems to apply aptly here. This proof is probably not any less notable than, say, any of the invalid proofs we have on record. 82.92.119.11 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The key problem here is that despite all the claims to elegance and such, there's no objective criteria for inclusion that we're using to justify this article. The other articles in category:proofs are either about methods used in proofs or specific proofs that are well known and specifically named. This proof doesn't have any historical importance attached to it in the way that a proof of a major problem in math is—mathematicians have known pi<22/7 far longer than they've been doing calculus. "indiscriminate collection of information" applies because this proof becomes the equivalent of an "interesting fact" about a person--worthy of inclusion in the article on the person, but not worth its own article. On its own, it's unencyclopedic. Night Gyr 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Then we can conceivably expand the article to include other proofs of π<22/7 that may have been used in antiquity (If my memory serves me correctly, I do believe there is a geometric demonstration of that inequality). Just because the article as it stands only includes one method of proof does not mean that it can never have more than one method of proof. Dysprosia 08:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- "have known pi<22/7 far longer than" But what's important here is the method of proof, rather than just the fact being proved. Michael Hardy 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Then we can conceivably expand the article to include other proofs of π<22/7 that may have been used in antiquity (If my memory serves me correctly, I do believe there is a geometric demonstration of that inequality). Just because the article as it stands only includes one method of proof does not mean that it can never have more than one method of proof. Dysprosia 08:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't have any really precise criterion (please don't use "criteria" in the singular!!!) for what proofs should be allowed, but this is a really pretty proof, with a verified and interesting story behind it. I don't think I'd really like to see the door opened to textbook-style routine proofs in general; certainly techniques can be outlined, but people who want the details probably should get the textbook. But I don't see why we can't have a few articles on proofs that are interesting in themselves (as distinct from the results they prove). --Trovatore 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, though merging would also be OK. R.e.b. 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge, per Michael Hardy. linas 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, no question about it. --Deville (Talk) 03:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge (I agree with Michael Hardy). --Pokipsy76 14:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as per BenFrantzDale: "The article is well-written and gives historical background." Moreover, it is notable for being short and elementary, while still not trivial. --Aleph4 16:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Pi is very important. This article, well, I would merge if Pi weren't so long.
- keep, obviously William M. Connolley 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep - but I am somewhat concerned by some of the lack of WP:CIVIL in this debate. Please try to refrain from personal attacks here folks - questioning other wikipedians' knowledge is hardly helpful. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Someone accused me of questioning his knowledge of mathematics. In fact, I was seeking information about his knowledge of Wikipedia customs. Michael Hardy 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep Not a POV/OR fork of Pi, obviously notable enough, etc. JeffBurdges 04:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a fine addition to the mathematical content of Wikipedia. I find the argument that a proof can't be an article unconvincing. As long as it's not crap, OR, etc., I see no reason why a proof can't be an article. I think the reason this article is not part of another is that it serves some purpose to have these standalone articles. I can easily envision other articles about famous theorems that would require separate articles on different proofs. I can even imagine that in the near future (a project I'm pondering), one would even need separate articles for parts of of an immense outline of a proof in addition to separate articles just for historical background (and motivation) about the theorem and proof. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to correct an inaccuracy above, I'm not at all convinced one can flatly state that this result was around before calculus. Archimedes and his peers certainly knew versions of at least the integral calculus and some geometric versions of special cases of the fundamental theorem. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, see how Archimedes used infinitesimals. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was known before Archimedes. Michael Hardy 00:07, 20 March 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 redirected (as non-notable) to Swastika. --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Swastik
Non-notable website (WP:WEB) with no Alexa data. ReDe-PRODded, so to AfD it goes. Sandstein 11:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Swastika. --Nlu (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Self-publicising, doesn't meet WP:WEB, delete or redirect to Swastika (latter is probably desirable as a typo catcher anyway). Fourohfour 11:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I originally proposed this for deletion with {{prod}}, doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Nlu. Proto||type 12:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Nlu. --Terence Ong 14:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. It would have been easier if you just redirected it without going through AfD. --BWD (talk) 15:49, 15 March 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 as nn-bio. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kareem Ryan
Non-notable biography, can't find anything that seems related on google. Speedy deletion contested, see Talk:Kareem Ryan. Weregerbil 11:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Should be a speedy delete - incomprehensible drivel about nn--Porturology 11:36, 15 March 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 Robert Howard. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bobby Howard
delete no verifiable claim to notability. no imdb entry--Porturology 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to the disambiguation page at Robert Howard. Proto||type 12:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect as nn. --Terence Ong 14:51, 15 March 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. JIP | Talk 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VASILIS KOSMOPOULOS
Greek TV director. Non-notable per WP:BIO, no pertinent Google hits. WP:PROD tag was re-added after being contested, which is not permissible, so it goes to AfD. Sandstein 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It has many Google hits if searched with Greek Spelling ("Βασίλης Κοσμόπουλος" or "Βασίλειος Κοσμόπουλος") Skag 11:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- 548 and 24 google hits are not that many, considering the claim that '[a]lmost all the top level managers of the Greek Tv Stations are well-known to the public and they are enjoying a "star" status'. David Sneek 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I admit that David Sneek's comment is fair... If the Wikipedia community believes that this is a non-notable BIO , I stand corrected and waiting for deletion. My intention was to add wikipedia entries for many "behind-the-camera" TV persons , but it seems that there is no need for this.... Skag 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Even though it is noted on Google, Vasilis appears to be an unnotable person as per Google information. - Enzo Aquarius 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:10, 18 March 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. JIP | Talk 11:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wooden Thomas
Non-notable artist/musician. Most notable claim is having published an album in 2004. Not much on google - a search for "wooden thomas" is pretty much all about the Tank Engine. Article is also POV. It has been around since July 2005 which is why I didn't just prod it. The articles that link to here are Casandra Stark which is tagged for cleanup and verification, and Talk:Pine Barrens (New Jersey) which only references in regard to how to format the Pine Barrens page. MLA 12:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn crankcruft, although he has a (cranky) website. Sandstein 18:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE --User: Waken 20:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC) This artist/musician is indeed relevant. He has produced a number of albums. The most recent was a live album, Dressed to Spill in 2006 at VIP in Garwood, NJ. Also, WFMU radio dj, William Berger has recent posts regarding this artist in his blog. Wooden Thomas's folk music falls into the Outsider genre, along with the likes of psychedelic folk pioneer, Syd Barrett, founding member of Pink Floyd and Jandek. At the least, the author should be notified of the votes for deletion so that the article could be updated. The Pine Barrens reference has been corrected.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kamau
This person is not noteworthy. He is a member of the RPG Maker community, but even in this very small world, he is not really of great significance, even though he made some well-received games. I don't think any author of games from this community should have an article on Wikipedia because the only people who care or could have benefit from it are the fans of that person's games or the person himself. Michiel Sikma 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Non-notable, like all RPG maker designs and all but maybe two example RPG maker games...Deckiller 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the other two should be deleted, as well. Deckiller 12:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete which other two, Dec? the.crazy.russian vent here 13:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 13:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: as per above. --Bhadani 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, just as most other amatuer game makers.M2K 21:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as M2K Funky Monkey 23:03, 15 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Indinera Falls
This person created a few RPG Maker games which some people have played. This is not an official game designer, merely a person who used a game program to make some games. In that way, it falls in the same category as fanfiction writers. Delete. Deckiller 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn game. --Terence Ong 15:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. "Indinera Falls is the alias of an RPG Maker 2000 user" and that does it for WP:BIO. also possible attack page for allegations of piracy. Sandstein 18:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Funky Monkey 23:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just like the articles on the games have been deleted.Mackan 03:40, 18 March 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. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Honda engine swaps
Currently a list of links to HOWTOs. Is there a way to make this into an article? Don't know myself so no vote. Weregerbil 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This seems like it's too specialized for Wikipedia -- it would make a better subject for a Honda owners' forum. --Elkman - (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as this is a fourm and Hondacruft. --Terence Ong 15:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. Attempt to build a how-to forum.--Isotope23 18:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT Delete This article is very useful, plase keep it there.unsigned comment by 150.140.211.15
- Delete A list of links is not encyclopedic. Nigelthefish 19:02, 20 March 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. Sango123 (e) 05:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Media Spy
Article is looking more and more like an ad, and is being consistently vandalised, filled with more and more untruths about the site and its owner and administration - DELETE BigDan 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it has come to my attention that members are using this Free Encylopedia to advertise Media Spy but to also use it as an outlet for their disapproval of certain aspects of our site. I believe this isn't what Wikipedia was designed for as this page has little to no information contained in it. Most information is wrong and if not, members are changing the info so that is wrong, so I'd like to see this page deleted! DELETE Lepatron 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; advert. PJM 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Various people are making it sound like an ad/being vandalised. Kennethjwebb 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Its an advertisment...this article should not be in a free encycolpedia.--GorillazFanAdam 02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Modify. The thing looks legit, and only a bit promotional.
- Delete Advert and constantly attracting vandals Slj 14:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'd like to keep most of the content. The 'Criticisms' section is awfully harsh, too, and I had to correct a mistake there (reflex action). The thing is that the vandals are really spoiling it. Such a pity. Cyvros/Marlett 22:13, 19 March 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.
This is kennethtron2000 the automatic post deletion programme that will exterminate all antimediaspy and antiseven network sentiment. DELETEDELETE EXTERMINATEEXTERMINATE. all opposition will be destroyed resistance is futile.
From Media Spy: "This site once had a lot of industry people reading it. Now when I occasionally log on I just read dribble from kids bagging good people. That's why Media Spy has lost it's relevance to all that work in the business."
Thought I had better post it here before kennethtron2000 kicked in and removed it from Media Spy. The Australian media critique won't tolerate criticism of their site, dontchyaknow. The pre-pubescant mods know better than the industry insiders, hence the calibre of contributions these days. The mods only think they have a clue which is why those of us who know better get such a laugh out of their attempts to run a credible, respectable site.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bobby Trendy
appears NN. been prodded before. notability asserted via the Anna Nicole Show, but if that is it, does not belong on WP. Abstain Delete. the.crazy.russian vent here 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge anything useful & Redirect to the The Anna Nicole Show. youngamerican (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment...I mean, you can bring it here if you want, but why would you prod it and then after the prod is removed bring it to AfD if you don't have an opinion on its deletion? NickelShoe 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, cuz you're supposed to be all impartial sounding in nominating stuff... you're right. I changed it. Thanks. the.crazy.russian vent here 13:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect. This strikes me as the kind of information people do actually look for. I could be convinced we don't need an article on him, but we should at the least retain the redirect to The Anna Nicole Show. NickelShoe 14:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Meets and exceeds the standard for notability MadCow257 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep looks notable. --Terence Ong 15:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep definitely notable. Moe Aboulkheir 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Anna Nicole Show.--Isotope23 16:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep under the Air Force Amy standard, which he quite clearly meets. Monicasdude 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- As I stated previously, MD, two wrongs don't make a right. the.crazy.russian vent here 21:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like the guy, but he's notable enough to Keep. With prejudice, because I don't think he's as "fabulous" as he thinks he is. *fingersnap* Mike H. That's hot 22:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect The Anna Nicole Show Funky Monkey 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not only is he important to information regarding the Anna Nicole Smith Show, he also is a furniture designer and so information regarding that should be considered instead of just redirecting to the Anna Nicole Smith Show article. VarunRajendran.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was renominated; for some reason, this nomination was considered closed as "no consensus", while in fact it was never closed. The article was later renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vercetti's Comrades 2 and deleted. I am closing this one because it is shown up as unclosed by a script of mine (Liberatore, 2006). 13:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Fail to see the noatability.Dlohcierekim 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Low Keep. I see there are slight notability issues, as I haven't heard of them, but here I was on wiki as I am a lot (without an account usually), and my brother told me to click here, and he said he's heard of them. Now I have no idea how he's heard of them as he's rarely out much, although he has done 'laserforce' (a laser game) quite a lot in the past year. This is a fellow Australian group, which has notability issues in America, Europe etc, but I feel this would make a good reference for Aussies and I've been a fan of social groups ever since high school. PeterKay, 17th March 2006.
- 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 ALL. -Splashtalk 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of UK members of parliament who support drug law reform
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps the articles could be cleaned up into a simple list, with the quotes and information placed in the articles about the individual people involved, but as it stands, this needs deletion.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they're the same thing:
- List of UK Peers who support drug law reform
- List of Members of the European Parliament who support drug law reform
--Fuzzie (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- As this article stands, it is political campaign material, and not anything approaching an encyclopedia article, or even a press article. Look at the emotive wording here: "This represents just some of pubic figure and instiutions from around the world who support reform of the pesent drug laws."!!! I'd prefer to outright delete this, because of problems with the inherent subjectivity involved, but even if kept it certainly should be totally reformatted. Will we see List of UK members of parliament who support euthanasia and List of UK members of parliament who oppose gay marriage? Morwen - Talk 13:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Emphatic Delete what if they change their mind tomorrow? lol! encyclopedia should be about facts, not beliefs subject to the whim of the holder. the.crazy.russian vent here 13:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Morwen. JGF Wilks 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Morwen. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- neutral As written it is riddled with POV but there is the germ of a good article in there, in that several British MPs are well known to be in favour of legalisation. others are not. So it probably needs to be moved to a different title and the prominantly anti-legalisation ones listed as well. OK, yes, wrong article at the wrong title, that's usually a delete from me, but I do think this has potential. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Morwen. --Terence Ong 15:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Yet another 'ever changing list.' --BWD (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleteoriginal research, highly suscepitble to POV. Concur with Morwen on scope as there is potential for many more repititious articles by MP vote - theyworkforyou.com has voting records for foundation hospitals, top-up fees, anti-terrorism, Iraq, ID Cards, fox hunting, and gay marriage on the main page for each MP which illustrates the number of articles that should appear if this one stays. Note that theyworkforyou does not have drug law reform and I can't think of anywhere else that would have the verifiable NPOV resourcing that would allow this article to not be OR. MLA 16:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Changing vote to Strong Delete as the good faith that I had assumed regarding ill-informed soapboxing appears to have been misplaced. MLA 10:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments on some of the comments so far:
Instead of moaning: you could help rephrase what you perceive to be POV and what you perceive to be emotive wording. After all, 108 MEP signed one declaration hence the wording to show it is incomplete -how else do you say it? If someone else can phrase it better then let them help. The list is also need to counter the comments by some, that there is little support for improvements to the existing laws -which itself is POV. Or do you want to have it both ways? Also, it is hardly (or wont be) 'indiscriminate'... And Look at all the articles listing just 'highways', etc. Why don't you put them up for deletion? Just go to list of lists and look though a few lists of things. =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/List_of As for it being untidy -it is. I am far from happy with it. There is still information to go on and if you look at the creation date it has only just been created . Some of you might have time to sit at the computer all day but some of us have other things to do. Much of this info is being collected be people who have to pick up the pieces (e.g., social workers, probation workers, lecturers in crime prevention etc) after things go wrong from laws that badly need improving. I expect few of you ( by the way you write) have got any crack houses near you, nor have witnessed at first hand the horror of it all, or your mind might be making connections to the wider picture, about what this list represents. Have you had people drop to the floor and turn blue, would you know how to handle it? Do you know were I and all these other people views are coming from?
As for the comment about any body on the lists changing their mind, it can be updated LIKE ANY OTHER ARTICLE that apt to change.
These articles seem to have been picked up by people who have not thought about it, nor realised that will links in with other stuff - do they reasonably expect that whole thing to be set up at once? Finally: If you look on the first talk page of the first article created it says:
These lists may not make sense to some people who are out of the loop until some of the other templates go on to explain the background and place the lists in context. This maybe finished by the end of the month. But because of what promises to be its eventual size and geographical and political range, the words, phrasing, syntax etc. need to be got right first. --Aspro 10:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) So some of you haven't even bothered to read it properly.--Aspro 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not political journal or soapbox. Pavel Vozenilek 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete listcruft.--Isotope23 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Problems include soapboxing, mistaking Wikipedia for one's webserver, indiscriminately accumulating information and WP:POV. Sandstein 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all no criteria for inclusion or exclusion -- one may be hard pressed to find any politician to say that drug law is perfect as is; reform could mean anything from legalization to execution for possessors: both reform the current law British/European laws. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic Funky Monkey 23:06, 15 March 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 — xaosflux Talk 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kvlt Promo Grrrl
346 Googles for a netlabel does not argue notability. The only external source is the website. Almost all the links are red, and probably best if they stayed that way. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. [23]. PJM 15:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable net label. JIP | Talk 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nn netlabel. --Terence Ong 15:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable Internet record label. (aeropagitica) 15:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnar Grímsson. PJM 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Funky Monkey 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:06, 18 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crab Smasher
I think this might be a hoax. Hpuppet 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- not a hoax, but notable band. --Terence Ong 15:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- First Google hit says "Crab Smasher is an unsigned indie band from Rock City, Australia." Unsigned bands should stay at Myspace, delete from Wikipedia. Punkmorten 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Punkmorten. Sandstein 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. I also rather doubt that Nicholas French is currently a member of this band. Feezo (Talk) 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete NN Nigelthefish 16:01, 20 March 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. -Splashtalk 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of ThinkTanks players, List of TT Armies and Player Alias Index
Non-notable gamecruft vanity, etc. I reckon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TT Players gives authority to speedy these but I will take a second opinion. -- RHaworth 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- NOTE: I am also adding ThinkTanks (game)/List of ThinkTanks players to this, a recreation of the original article. Grandmasterka 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I've been a TT player for over 2 years and just about EVERYONE who plays the game thinks we need this index listing of past and current players. We usually keep the list on another personal website but believe it makes more sense to keep it on wikipedia where the players can update the list themselves. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia and one of its primary beauties? Self-sustenance? The same goes for the player alias list that links to this list.
- It reveals/shares all of the psuedonyms used by players and the meanings behind their names. Paisano® 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. -- RHaworth 15:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete sorry this is gamecruft. --Terence Ong 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's all -cruft! Of course! Sheesh. The majority of entries in wikipedia could be labeled cruft. These pages are important to the players of the game. Paisano® 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- You are only allowed one vote and have you looked at my talk page? -- RHaworth 16:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete You can get your own wiki if you like, Wikipedia is something else. Thatcher131 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic lists of people playing a game. Weregerbil 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well is there another way to include this information with our wikipedia entry without going back to external links? What about using stubs? Paisano® 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- A list of players? Not really... There are free web site providers, those welcome your information, and they often have chat sites etc. Much better than Wikipedia for organizing a gaming clan. Google should find you such sites, or ask for opinions in gaming chat sites. Weregerbil 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Textbook vanispamcruft, incredible gall to put up such a load of junk. Get your own webpage, please. Sandstein 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per my earlier vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TT Players. I thought this looked familiar... suggest authors explore (free) web hosting and set up their own TT Wiki.--Isotope23 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as Wikipedia is not a game community. While I wish the members of said community luck in establishing a similar list elsewhere, it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Lord Bob 21:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per all delete votes, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Grandmasterka 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per above. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: If I may quote List of TT Armies, "there is no order". savidan(talk) (e@) 04:52, 24 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Memoirs of a Daydreamer Jonesboria Discordia
Delete vanity press publications, not for sale on Amazon. Deprodded without reason--Porturology 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:VSCA refers, non-notable poet and poetry. (aeropagitica) 16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn/vanity. DenisMoskowitz 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN Nigelthefish 20:23, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ragnar Grímsson
Based on what I find, this band doesn't satisfy WP:NMG [24] & [25]. PJM 15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like a viable article. Kukini 15:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete looks nn. --Terence Ong 16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Just shy of nn. --Ricaud 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this article should definitely share the same fate as their record label. Punkmorten 17:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. All of their "records" were "released" in 2005 by their own netlabel, itself headed for deletion as noted by Punkmorten. So just some musicians with a webserver, zero evidence of any impact. Sandstein 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the last two callers. the.crazy.russian vent here 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, appears to meet minimal standards for notability, though not by all that much. Monicasdude 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - they don't meet WP:BAND - they haven't released anything on any of the major record labels or a major indie label, only by their own netlabel (this is as close as the band gets to meeting the notability guidelines). Cursive 23:23, 17 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Great Willmar, Minnesota Raid
Although a notable figure seems to have been involved in Machine Gun Kelly, this seems a non-notable event. To quote from the original version of the article: "...few people know much about it, if anything at all. And Willmar doesn’t celebrate the event or even talk about it." Obviously it needs a massive clean up but I think there's nothing worth saving. It seems that it was copied straight from a local-interest type book by one Terry Shaw who is also apparently the user who created this page. Spondoolicks 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- article doesn't explain the importance of the event in Minnesota history or in the history of Machine Gun Kelly. The Minnesota Historical Society doesn't have anything online about it, although this article from crimelibrary.com asserts some notability of the event. Still, the current article reads like a narrative or a story, not an encyclopedia article. If the article could be rewritten to address these concerns, I'd be more inclined to keep it. --Elkman - (talk) 20:35, 15 March 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 — xaosflux Talk 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quadrant Delta
A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Note the similar AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderlands rpg MLA 16:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. --Ricaud 16:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice as non-notable fandom and vanity. Brian G. Crawford 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, maybe a speedy delete per nn-club? Sandstein 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle 12:46, 16 March 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. Jinian 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terry Tales, Terry Tales 2 and Terry R. Shaw
Seems to be self-published local-interest book. Article was created by the book's author. See talk page for more details. Spondoolicks 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the author of the books article (Terry R. Shaw) was also nominated for deletion by User:195.92.168.174 but the process wasn't completed. I completed it by changing the AfD tag to point to this discussion. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all Amazon rank over 1 million, author fails WP:BIO. Sandstein 18:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination - local-interest books that I've never actually seen in local bookstores. --Elkman - (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)I'm removing this vote and recusing myself from this discussion because I've pissed off the author. Since I've never done a damn noteworthy thing in my life, OBVIOUSLY I'm not even qualified to participate in AfD votes or to edit an encyclopedia. You can go ahead and vandalize my page now, since everyone else who objects to my AfD articles vandalizes my page. --Elkman - (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)- Delete all, per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO and no evidence of books' notability.--Isotope23 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Anyone who finds the town notable enough for inclusion will find the book useful and notable as well. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Although clearly the three articles should be merged and nonsense like "popular book" should be made NPOV. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- My two books have sold over 5000 copies and are currently being sold by Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com. I'm being inducted into the Minnesota Rock/Country Hall of Fame in May of 2006. When you "watchdogs" have done something this noteworthy, then go ahead and delete the articles about me. Until then, they should be left alone. [[71.16.163.148 02:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)]]
- I actually have done something that noteworthy, sales-wise, but I made an early decision not to give my wikipedia career over to self-documentation. Anyway, if you can bring back The Defiants and Shaw-Allen-Shaw over the current copyright problems, then we can begin to address whether your own article is notable - but until then, we have a problem. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can you prove the sold over 5000 copies claim? That would meet WP:BIO if it can be proven.--Isotope23 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy and please don't bite a well-meaning newbie here. User:Torshaw made many good contributions to Minnesota articles. Yes, every one of them needs cleanup and rewritting to fit our style, but the content of these is valuable and I'd like to encourage Terry to keep adding good stuff. Jonathunder 02:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy per Jonathunder. JoshuaZ 02:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and merge to Terry R. Shaw or The Defiants. I think that the case to be made here is that in aggregate Shaw merits an article. The main grounds for inclusion is the involvement in The Defiants, which while at best barely meeting WP:MUSIC, is better evaluated through the lens of history. The fact that they are being The Defiants had local significance prior to the ubiquity of local rock bands, and as such are rather more significant than the dozens of bands that we delete daily. Further, though the articles themselves need copyediting, there are enough facts to build upon. Shaw's books, despite being of local interest, have nonetheless sold in the thousands, making this more than a mere church-basement project. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you have found evidence that the book has actually sold thousands of copies could you please give us a link to it here to inform our debate. --Spondoolicks 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how I missed The Defiants in my trawl through User:Torshaw's edits looking for vanity articles. His other non-notable band, Shaw-Allen-Shaw got deleted a few days ago and I'm putting this one to AfD as well. --Spondoolicks 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you have found evidence that the book has actually sold thousands of copies could you please give us a link to it here to inform our debate. --Spondoolicks 13:29, 25 March 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. JIP | Talk 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christina Ritter
Looks like another vanity entry. No IMDB entry (despite the link), Google picks up almost nothing when cross-searching her with the movies she has supposedly appeared in...
- Delete per nom JackO'Lantern 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Her credits look pretty much like walk-ons or extra. She could become notable in the future (she's not yet 15) but it doesn't look like she's there, yet. Fan1967 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not so much that her credits are thin, it's that I can't even confirm she was really in all those movies, in any capacity. IMDB doesn't list her, google doesn't pick her up... JackO'Lantern 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- ... which kind of screams "extra" to me, assuming it's not totally made up. Fan1967 00:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- lol... that's what I assumed, actually. It wouldn't be the first time someone's tried to use Wikipedia to invent a career for themselves... JackO'Lantern 00:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Here's something even more interesting, a site that claims to be hers [26], including a bunch of credits in local and school theatre. A month ago, in her blog, she talks about planning to audition for films and TV. Hmmm Fan1967 00:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Are you hmmming at me or at her? :) JackO'Lantern 01:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Here's something even more interesting, a site that claims to be hers [26], including a bunch of credits in local and school theatre. A month ago, in her blog, she talks about planning to audition for films and TV. Hmmm Fan1967 00:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- lol... that's what I assumed, actually. It wouldn't be the first time someone's tried to use Wikipedia to invent a career for themselves... JackO'Lantern 00:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- ... which kind of screams "extra" to me, assuming it's not totally made up. Fan1967 00:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not so much that her credits are thin, it's that I can't even confirm she was really in all those movies, in any capacity. IMDB doesn't list her, google doesn't pick her up... JackO'Lantern 00:47, 16 March 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 — xaosflux Talk 04:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zelda DS
Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and without references this is speculation. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as per the not a crystal ball thing. I was the one who originally prod'ed it. The only other contributor continued to remove it without reason. I wasn't exactly sure if that meant to take it to this level, but oh well. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As above. Games are cancelled in development all the time. --Ricaud 16:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously, no might in the world can stop Nintendo from making a Zelda game for DS... but we don't yet know when, what, or how. Until then, no reason making an article about it. Makes as much sense as an article titled "2009 in video gaming" right now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:20, 16 March 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. JIP | Talk 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Replicator (band)
Delete as nn band. Article was originally {{prod}}'d, but tag was removed due to claims that the band met WP:MUSIC. While it appears to be true that the band has gone on a tour, and that they have produced two albums...they do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC because touring in and around San Fransisco (with a couple of shows in Seattle and Portland) can hardly be considered a national concert tour, and without a more clear definition of what "one of the more important indie labels" means, the two albums were not released by "one of the more important indie labels". Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:MUSIC. The national tour wasn't "in and around San Francisco," but from SF to Palmer, MA and points in between during their "ReplicaTour" [27], which qualifies them for a national tour. A simple look at their website indicates this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Both albums are listed on allmusic.com, plus the tour, [28]. PJM 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Keep. Band has gone on several tours and produced two albums. While they are not as active today as they've been in the past, that certainly doesn't seem to be grounds for deletion.
- 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 - author request - military secret that leaked out - actually he said more commercial than military. -- RHaworth 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Automatic Wire Test Set (AWTS)
This document defines the requirements for the … test set that will replace. No original research, WP is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not a free host (see talk page) all apply. Joe Lombardi - I have just this moment been thanked for pointing someone else towards Wikicities where you can create your own wiki. I think you should go there too. -- RHaworth 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Creator of AWTS article says...
Please delete the article at your earliest possible convenience! -- Joe Lombardi 21:11, 15 March 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 userfy. - Liberatore(T) 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Timo Kouwenhoven
This appears to be an autobiography/résumé, made and edited almost solely by its subject. In fact, the vast majority of edits from User:Timo Kouwenhoven have been on this article.
- 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 — xaosflux Talk 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alan Wood
THis person is not notable. Delete article --Light current 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if the fact that he is a Chief Executive at Siemens is verifiable. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, CEO of Siemens UK is notable enough. Verification here. Also a CBE and a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, as well as chairman of divers industry organisations. Sandstein 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, probably Speedy Keep given orphan status and comments above. Monicasdude 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable Funky Monkey 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- clearly meets notability. Reyk 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep He is the CEO of Siemens UK, so he is much less important than Klaus Kleinfeld, the CEO of Siemens AG, but he just scraps though as chairman of EEF the manufacturers organisation. Bhoeble 17:03, 16 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consumarchy
Prodded as protologism, based on coinage of one a single researcher. Prod tag removed so bringing it here.
- Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism, practically nothing on Google. What do people that write this sort of thing as serious science smoke? Sandstein 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Neologism, WP is not a dictionary. (aeropagitica) 18:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete see above Nigelthefish 16:03, 20 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Johnny Marler Gentry
Pathetic article.Bewibes 15:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ... and less than completely overwhelming nomination. However, he has no immediately pertinent Google hits, so we must assume he fails WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: the nominator "Bewibes" is a sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal. -- Curps 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:MUSIC; the albums are self-produced, apparently; I couldn't find them for sale except at the band's own website. Mangojuice 16:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable band Nigelthefish 20:14, 20 March 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 redirect to List of video game consoles. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Video Game Consoles A-Z
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was There is already a similair article here: List of video game consoles. It has much more information and consoles on it. [29]. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, listcruft full of non-latin characters. Sandstein 19:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect to List of video game consoles. Redirects are cheap. Nifboy 19:37, 15 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lori Hoglund
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Apparent vanity page, notariaty cannot be independently verified. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Yawn. Aplomado - UTC 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity Bucketsofg 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Lori Hoglund claims it isn't vanity, at least by Hoglund's hand. Nonetheless, her purported public attention and influence need to be demonstrable. A remotely noteworthy U.S. antiwar protester circa 2006 is gonna get plenty of web hits; she doesn't. Delete. Samaritan 09:52, 19 March 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 as nn-bio -SCEhardT 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alexis Wengraf
This is a Vanity Page Steve 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, a vanity page for a university student, does not meet WP:BIO guidelines.
86.142.145.237 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)whoops! Sliggy 17:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom....and I'll {{prod}} his referenced cohort George Tyrakis for the same reason. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No it's not, I am making the general public aware of a political activist group in Southampton. We regularly write articles for our local paper.
- Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete this as there's no notability asserted. Aplomado - UTC 17:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Aplomado. Sandstein 18:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Speedy delete I agree. Tagged accordingly. the.crazy.russian vent here 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn per nom. (making people aware in a local paper is by definition nn.) Bucketsofg 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - CSD A7 --lightdarkness (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete via WP:CSD, A7. When you've been covered in some newspapers and independent publications, then you can get an article about yourself. --Elkman - (talk) 20:14, 15 March 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. -Splashtalk 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Jewish American criminals and victims
Initially listed under prod, the tag was removed and then replaced within 24 hours. I've brought it here for a proper evaluation, since the rules of prod specify that the tag cannot be replaced when removed by another user. I'm leaving messages on the users talk pages as well. BTW, I'm neutral on the question. JGF Wilks 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm hard-pressed trying to figure out what use this article would be. Aplomado - UTC 17:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Like all such lists, it creates issues of verifiability, and is essentially indiscriminate (ie, there is no evidence that these people have similar views on Judaism, observe it to the same degree in their lives, regard themselves as Jewish, don't share other ethnicities as well as a connection to being Jewish, etc.) So, there is no meaning, no encyclopedic reason to group these people together. Slowmover 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unmaintainable and pointless list, POV-bait. Sandstein 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. Bucketsofg 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because there is no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion and we have verifiability issues. Isn't every person who invested in these Enron-type companies a "victim" so any who are also (verifiably) Jewish get added to the list? No usefulness for that. As for the criminal side, there was certainly Jewish-run organized crime rings (equivalent to the Italian mafia), a list of those players may be encyclopedic and useful, but this is a collection of crooks of varying decrees of culpability and Jewishness -- moreover, I find no evidence in the biographies of Sarah Jane Moore and the Menendez brothers that they are even faintly Jewish. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Nobody makes list of Christian or Islamic criminals, why should a list of Jewish criminals be made? This is absurd and this page should be deleted ASAP.--GorillazFanAdam 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's taken me a while to realise what I feel about this page. I think I can see merit in a page that attempted to list people who were victims because they were Jewish (though I'm aware that verification might often be difficult) and that similar lists of victimization because of different creeds, lifestyle, political views etc. might be created could have a place. This list is not such a list. Any list that fixes on this or other character attributes is arbitary (at best) and potentially inflammatory at worst. No longer neutral. JGF Wilks 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete unencyclopedic inflammatory offensive Funky Monkey 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. What disappoints me is that we couldn't get this kind of consensus on the List of Muslim athletes just a few days ago. Slowmover 23:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete.Inflammatory, innaccurate as to the Menendez brothers[30] and agree pov bait.--Dakota ~ ° 08:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please Preserve! This list has been here for quite a while and only just now has become controversial; If the argument is simply that Jews shouldn't be singled out for special treatment, then all the many other lists of Jews (writers, businesspeople, etc., etc., etc.) should be deleted as well; Likewise the lists of American murderers and American criminals also represent a demonizing of a particular group which I as an American could legitimately object to or question the point of, but I don't because (as an American who occasionally jaywalks) I also believe in the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which I believe is still in effect, although sometimes I wonder); Admittedly the external links for the Knoller/Noel dog-mauling case were originally to a decidedly anti-Semitic site [31], but I have since linked them to the CourtTV site since these two convicted killers of Diane Whipple don't have a Wiki page (although they deserve one, like all the other well-known figures on the list). As for the Menendez brothers, their father was a Cuban Jew, and after his murder Erik made his way briefly to Israel [32] where Jews have special automatic citizenship status and therefore won't be extradited to the U.S. to face capital punishment; Removing this list without removing all the many other lists of Jews and lists of criminals would be caving in to censorship and hypocrisy-- something condemned by a certain well-known New Testament Jewish prophet revered by billions of Christians and Muslims. — Someone (not me) went to the trouble of creating this list quite a while ago, and apparently no one objected until now. Someone also (not me) went to the trouble (last November) of changing it from just "criminals" to "criminals and victims" -- and someone else (me) moved the list of victims to the top of the page to give it more prominence. Clearly an effort is being made to present the facts as fairly as possible, which suggests anything but "inflammatory" and "anti-Jewish advocacy" as the above commenters claim. A few of the names I added have already been legitimately removed because they were not actually convicted of a crime, which I admit I should have been more careful about. It's not a question of whether I personally "like these lists" -- yes, I like the way that Wikipedia is filled with an amazing degree of cross-referencing via hyperlinks, of which the thousands of "these lists" are an integral part. I also like the way Wikipedia goes to great lengths to present an amazing variety of facts from its famously neutral P.O.V., and provides for lively discussions like this one when disputes inevitably erupt. If people thought that Wiki was being "sanitized for your protection" from anything icky, they might start to take it all with a grain of salt -- as they do with the dumbed-down information presented through the mainstream media, which is why people are turning more and more to websites like Wiki. The essential point is that this list is only one of dozens and dozens of Wikipedia lists and categories of Jews, Americans, victims and criminals -- not even counting other ethnicities and nationalities. There are no fewer than 59 pages in the Category:Lists of Jews alone -- should this be changed to "Lists of Good Jews" only, with a little happy face ☺ next to each entry? Or perhaps a gold star ★? What makes any of these pages any more or less "meaningful" than any other page in Wikipedia, or on the web? The question "Why should people who are 'Jewish' be collected together?" can be answered with a rhetorical "Why shouldn't they?" Wouldn't removing these 59 lists (and all the dozens of sublists therein) be an act of ethnic cleansing? If you have a problem with a particular name on a particular list, consider removing it while stating exactly why. But please don't delete (i.e., censor) the entire list unless all such lists are "cleansed" from all of Wikipedia -- G☺d forbid! -- 4.240.123.114 11:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC) -- ElCabezón
- Comment. You seem to be missing the point. This isn't about censorship or freedom of expression. If you like these lists, create one on a website. The point is what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, which should collect meaningful information and try for objectivity (not POV). This information is not meaningful. If it has a meaning, please explain what that is. Why should people who are "Jewish" be collected together? Aren't they individuals, with individual views? They might object to being categorized like this. Arguing that there are other lists on Wikipedia which are just as problematic does not address the issue. Slowmover 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- CommentAs a Jew I take ver heavy offense to an article that singles out Jewish criminals, simply because they are Jewish. --GorillazFanAdam 15:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. You seem to be missing the point. This isn't about censorship or freedom of expression. If you like these lists, create one on a website. The point is what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, which should collect meaningful information and try for objectivity (not POV). This information is not meaningful. If it has a meaning, please explain what that is. Why should people who are "Jewish" be collected together? Aren't they individuals, with individual views? They might object to being categorized like this. Arguing that there are other lists on Wikipedia which are just as problematic does not address the issue. Slowmover 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — I think there's a weak case to be made for listing positive contributors belonging to a particular faith, as they could have some encyclopedic value in disproving certain preconceptions. But the very title of this page crosses the line into anti-Jewish advocacy. — RJH 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — per RJH - Newport 12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Preserve. It seems no different than the other 31 "List of Jewish American...." Ted 22:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If Wikipedia is going to have a list of famous victims and criminals, there is no reason to categorize that list based on what religion the victims/criminals happened to have. --Tifego 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Preserve. Nearly every single list of Americans have criminal lists. Why should it be different for Jews? Its all factually accurate information I dont see the problem. Secondly it is showing some Jews in a unfavorable light so its moving towards censorship. Every ethnic group has it's criminals there is no reason to try to hide it. It is not an attack on Jews.
Jerry Jones 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if it becomes reduced to Jewish criminals which would be a reasonable list. JoshuaZ 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it would be better to split into a list of criminals vs. a list of murder victims, but the Jewishness of the people in the list IS an interesting and encyclopedic reason for this list to exist. Jews (and Jewish Americans), just like every other ethnic or religious group, are sometimes interested in who of them are criminals, musicians, actors, etc. Furthermore, as the criminals are all different types, this would be hard to duplicate with the Category system. Mangojuice 16:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this and other similar "ethnic/religious criminals" lists. -Will Beback 21:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I didn't know there were Jewish gangsters, but I agree with Will: we shouldn't have criminal lists based on religion and ethnicity. --Candide, or Optimism 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - unencyclopedic per Snowspinner and others. Johntex\talk 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - No value for having this list. --Vsion 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't see what value any of these lists have. Gerard Foley 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A part of this page was spun off into a new article titled List of Jews in the mafia. The edit summary is "looks like the criminals page is going to be deleted but this I believe should be salvaged because it has encyclopedic value" which appears to be an attempt to bypass AfD. -- JLaTondre 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't look that way to me at all, someone thought that a segment of the list was valid and so is creating a list around that. I don't see an issue. If you think there is a problem, then nominate it for deletion. JoshuaZ 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that I have not voted on this debate. That's because I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, the entire list is up for debate. Whether someone thought that segment of the list is valid or not, is irrelevant. Extracting a portion of it and creating a new article without even mentioning it on the AfD is not proper. The proper step would have been to edit the existing article and attempt to convience people to vote keep on the revised article. Regardless, my comment is just that, a comment - it's up to the closing admin to decide how to handle it. -- JLaTondre 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment — In response to many of these comments, I believe the list has a great deal of encyclopædic "value" for distinguishing the relatively few communist spies who were prosecuted from the many hundreds who were not, and who are thus not listed here. In that regard, this list complements the List of alleged secret agents, the Category:Soviet spies, the Category:Accused Soviet spies, the Category:Cold War spies, the List of Americans in the Venona papers, the Category:Venona Appendix A and the many other pages on the subject of spying (a very serious crime punishable by death, à la Julius & Ethel Rosenberg) that make no such distinction. Please don't delete!! -- 4.240.213.168 12:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC) -- ElCabezón
- Comment Please note that I have not voted on this debate. That's because I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, the entire list is up for debate. Whether someone thought that segment of the list is valid or not, is irrelevant. Extracting a portion of it and creating a new article without even mentioning it on the AfD is not proper. The proper step would have been to edit the existing article and attempt to convience people to vote keep on the revised article. Regardless, my comment is just that, a comment - it's up to the closing admin to decide how to handle it. -- JLaTondre 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't look that way to me at all, someone thought that a segment of the list was valid and so is creating a list around that. I don't see an issue. If you think there is a problem, then nominate it for deletion. JoshuaZ 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I find this whole debate very disturbing. There is no reason not to have lists of types of people by nationality: it's not only encyclopedic, it's actually interesting, which is one step higher, and religion should be no different from nationality. However, I am actually quite offended by the idea that because it's a list of "bad people" we shouldn't have it. That's POV pushing! It's one thing if the community thinks none of these lists are worth having... I disagree, but fine. But it is NOT antisemitism to have a list of Jewish criminals: we have lots of other lists of Jews, for one thing, but even if we didn't, and even if it WAS antisemitism, that can't be a basis for excluding it from a neutral encyclopedia. I strongly agree with 4.240.213.168's two comments. Mangojuice 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If it matters at all, I'm Jewish and I strongly agree with you. JoshuaZ 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you see lists of Islamic or Christian criminals? If it was a list of criminals by nationality, fine, but there should not be a list of criminals based on their religious views. Oh and JoshuaZ, based on your previous comments I highly doubt you are Jewish. --GorillazFanAdam 01:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment' That's nice. And what gave you that idea? JoshuaZ 02:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "If it becomes reduced to Jewish criminals which would be a reasonable list" is what you said, or are (Personal attack removed) --GorillazFanAdam 04:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, Jewish victims and criminals would be much too large a list if done properly, and in any situation, criminals are (to my mind) more interesting and arguably more encyclopedic than victims. Victims are passive, generally just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Criminals on the other hand, there is action to it. Its like how Iago is a more interesting character than Othello. I fail to see how my list preference is an indication of my Jewishness. JoshuaZ 04:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed, if you wanted a list of American Jewish victims you'd have to list thousands. - Newport 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Jewishness is not a word, so I do not really understand what you were trying to say in that sentence. A list of Jewish criminals, they already have an anti-semetic site you may be familiar with, called jewatch for that, no need to put propaganda on this site as well. I really would not be suprised if you were a sock puppet for 4.240.213.168. Now please, (Personal attack removed) --GorillazFanAdam 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, because if I were an anti-semitic sockpuppet, I really would have made this comment [33], this [34] edit, this edit [35], and especially this one [36] among others. It is not anti-semitic to have a list that happens to contain a few bad seeds. Every ethnic/religious/cultural/whatever(I'm not getting into the argument about how to define what it means to be Jewish) has some bad seeds. Wanting a list for them doesn't make one a bigot. Now, can we please concentrate on the AfD at hand? JoshuaZ 04:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Jewishness is not a word, so I do not really understand what you were trying to say in that sentence. A list of Jewish criminals, they already have an anti-semetic site you may be familiar with, called jewatch for that, no need to put propaganda on this site as well. I really would not be suprised if you were a sock puppet for 4.240.213.168. Now please, (Personal attack removed) --GorillazFanAdam 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "If it becomes reduced to Jewish criminals which would be a reasonable list" is what you said, or are (Personal attack removed) --GorillazFanAdam 04:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment' That's nice. And what gave you that idea? JoshuaZ 02:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you see lists of Islamic or Christian criminals? If it was a list of criminals by nationality, fine, but there should not be a list of criminals based on their religious views. Oh and JoshuaZ, based on your previous comments I highly doubt you are Jewish. --GorillazFanAdam 01:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If it matters at all, I'm Jewish and I strongly agree with you. JoshuaZ 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding the Jews and the Mafia list, it is an encyclopedic topic, probably even deserves its own article. Note that there have been at least two mainstream books on the topic in the last decade: [37]. JoshuaZ 05:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Go make a category. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong and speedy Delete: Maintaining the list in an encyclopaedia is pointless. --Soumyasch 12:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Does anyone think that this sort of list is substantially different from List of Jewish actors and actresses? If so, I'd like to understand exactly why. JoshuaZ 03:46, 25 March 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. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chikkaveera Rajendra
Hi - This article has remained unsourced for a long time. It is one sentence about a novel based on some historical events - I don't think it should be retained in present form. Rama's Arrow 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Rama's Arrow 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Speedy delete due to no content.Keep due to changes. Aplomado - UTC 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Delete A stub article, non-encyclopædic.(aeropagitica) 18:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)- Keep & expand Editor has made a good effort at expanding this article in response to AfD. It now deserves a chance for further improvements to be made. (aeropagitica) 17:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete In what sense is that an encyclopedia article? --Ricaud 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep This new version is a clear keep. --Ricaud 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is a Jnanpith winning work by Maasti Venkatesh Ayengar. I have requested for help. Hopefully someone will improve this. Tintin (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment2 User:ImpuMozhi has created a stub and would expand it further in the next few days. Can the voters take another look at the article. Tintin (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete now that the subject has been established, hopefully you and ImpuMozhi will also add the sources. Rama's Arrow 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and continue to expand per feedback from AfD. AreJay 14:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, current status looks great. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is now an acceptable stub, and I plan to expand it. ImpuMozhi 20:57, 17 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sprachcaffe
User Nri06 added linkspam to "sprachcaffe.com" on six language articles and then created this article. It's an advertisment. Imroy 18:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advert for company that fails WP:CORP. (aeropagitica) 18:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Aeropagitica. Sandstein 19:13, 15 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CITES Help Desk
University of Illinois is notable. The IT department probably isn't. The helpdesk of the IT department for certain sure is not. WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sandstein 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Article isn't informative, and certainly not notable. --Elkman - (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "colorful characters"? --Ricaud 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:03, 16 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TNA 2006 World X Cup Tournament
"forthcoming", "will be", "no confirmed members" - you can see where this is leading can't you? WP:NOT a crystal ball. Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Anyone else noticed the flood of wrestlingcruft lately? Sandstein 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article is recording the qualification process for the tournament, and is therefore about a current event, not a future event as misleadingly claimed by the nominator. Hawkestone 20:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Hawkestone. youngamerican (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It's some what crystal-bally, and wrestlecrufty, but has some confirmed info, not just guesses. Eivindspeak! 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Hawkestone. McPhail 09:16, 16 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Democratic National Conference
Hi - I consider this non-notable, and it has remained unsourced and unedited for 2 months. Rama's Arrow 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (I think). I think this was a genuine historical party. And given that it is India may have had millions of members and still have been minor there. I think that this article should be sourced and expanded. Bucketsofg 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This is obviously an article about a real party. It was created by Soman, who is the creator of the majority of the articles about left wing parties and organizations. The article just needs references and, of course, improvement. If you delete this one you'll have a reason to delete the remaining hundreds of leftwing parties stubs like this. Afonso Silva 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete You convinced me—getting rid of some stubs that nobody ever bothers to flesh out, and which would probably be nonnotable if they did, sounds good. Gene Nygaard 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't realized that deleting all the stubs was the policy in wikipedia. Afonso Silva 13:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Rama is show a rather ignorant approach to Kashmiri political history. The progressive elements of National Conference played an important role in the time just after independence, especially in drafting its state constitution. The fact that this party was led by Sadiq, who later became Chief Minister is also notable. Thirdly, this group is the alma mater of all communist movements in Kashmir, the root of the presence of Naxalites in the state, and later the current CPI(M) branch (which is represented in the legislative assembly). --Soman 14:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- political parties are notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Unsourced and unedited is not enough grounds for deletion in this case, sorry. --Gurubrahma 10:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand - Ganeshk (talk) 07:10, 20 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nigel Kimber
States he is notable, famous even, but the claim is unverifiable - our survey says four unique hits for "Nigel Kimber" guitar. Some sly digs, I suspect complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The man himself may well be real, but the biography is spurious - WP:BIO violation, probable {{hoax}}. (aeropagitica) 18:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. [38]. PJM 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly some kind of joke article. --Ricaud 00:22, 16 March 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. JIP | Talk 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SutraSonic
Delete NN duo signed on an unproven label. There was a finding of an assertion of notability by Stifle, who removed db-band. the.crazy.russian vent here 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:26, 15 March 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 as non-notable group. Just zis Guy you know? 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Generation Changers Ecumenical Bible Club
- Delete. Not notable. Carlo 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Arbusto 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}, so tagged. Sandstein 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Bucketsofg 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no assertion of notability the.crazy.russian vent here 20:40, 15 March 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. The title can be changed at will. I do observe though, that whilst I assume good faith, no evidence has been presented that this does, in fact, exist. -Splashtalk 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Schoeners
As the original PRODder noted, there are no Google hits for "The Schoeners saturday night live". Delete as probable hoax. Sandstein 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax.Slowmover 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)- Changed to neutral. I'm just not sure we really need articles on every series of sketches done on SNL or any other TV show, for that matter. It really stretches the concept of notability. Slowmover 21:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Real series of sketches, just not funny. Identification of SNL hoaxes better left to people who actually watch the show. Fix title, perhaps best as "The Art Dealers." [39] Monicasdude 21:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. Fair comment. Slowmover 21:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Happens to be my favorite sketches - this page was very helpful to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.102.209 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2006 March 19 (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. Cyde Weys 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jonathan Skinner
- Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Only one book of unknown readership listed. Arbusto 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Per Worldcat, one library owns the book listed. Very hard to search for other books by the same author as there is an American author named Jonathan Skinner who has written a ton of books on economic issues. Thatcher131 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps delete this page as NN and create a new article featuring the more academically known economist? Arbusto 04:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Per Worldcat, one library owns the book listed. Very hard to search for other books by the same author as there is an American author named Jonathan Skinner who has written a ton of books on economic issues. Thatcher131 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as
vanitynon-notable. But note that his church also has a page, Widcombe Baptist Church, as do a host of other local churches of no particular significance. A major cleanup project! Slowmover 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Changing "vanity" to "non-notable" per the fair criticism of Uncle Davey below.
-
- Thanks for that. Yes, she did do a Widcombe church page, and she did the Skinner page, but I take it that these are matters she happens to know about. Since she also did this page Tota_pulchra_es, a page reflecting on Mary and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is contrary to Baptist and other Protestant theology, so it is unlikely that she has POV issues, whereas there is systematic deletion of Christian related articles going on all over Wikipedia. I think it is one thing when there are two sides trying on the one hand to increase Christian content and on the other to delete it, but it's a pity if the contributions of someone who had no such intention, and was merely writing about something local to her, should be caught up in this. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Slowmover 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless notability is further established. the.crazy.russian vent here 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep' I know I created this page, but I believe Jonathan Skinner is well known in many circles in Britain, and is an important figure in evangelical teaching and the FIEC. He writes many articles for the evangelical times and is a renowned scientist. He has given many talks and lectures attended by wide audiences. Delete if you wish, but these are my reasons for proposing to keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abbyemery (talk • contribs).
- Please sign your comments. If you would like to strengthen the article by adding information that will independently establish (outside your own opinion) his importance, feel free to do so. Check the guidelines for help on verifiability and inclusion of biographies. Things like newspaper accounts of his lectures, book reviews (if he has written any) will help establish verifiability and notability. The AfD discussion runs for 5 days before closing, and if you have made significant improvement you can ask for a reconsideration. Thatcher131 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable. --Sugarpie Honeybunch 21:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I see you added some articles he wrote. That is useful, but it would be more useful to list articles about him. Thatcher131 22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable biography as it currently stands. No discussion regarding attitudes, viewpoints, criticism, notability amongst peers, etc. Book reviews and citations of influential articles that Skinner has (co-)authored would be a good start. The justification for keep above is weak - in which circles is Skinner well known and for what? Why is Skinner important in evangelical teaching and to whom? These are questions that researcher may well ask, so the article should make an effort to provide answers. (aeropagitica) 23:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per (aeropagitica) OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notabl bio. --Terence Ong 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete article has not established notablility.--Jersey Devil 10:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sugarpie Honeybunch is not a sockpuppet of Abbyemery —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.137.62.225 (talk • contribs).
-
- I would be curious to know how an unsigned anonymous user with an IP address belonging to a German cable company would know this. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- That user was me, I could not sign in as I was on a school computer. I assure you that I have not created any sockpuppets. That would be a waste of time and no doubt someone would notice. Abbyemery 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you couldn't log in, but thanks for clarifying. Thatcher131 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- If I had signed in I would have been spotted by the teacher not doing the work that I was supposed to be doing, and I would not have been able to make the edit at all! Abbyemery 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you couldn't log in, but thanks for clarifying. Thatcher131 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Me again. Sorry that I'm still fighting this, but I really believe that this guy is notable. [40] - his website, featuring information about the book he wrote and a radio program he recorded for BBC radio 4 ([41]). [42] - a page providing information on his book.
- I think it would help more if the links were not all self-promotional. Except for one review of one book, nobody seems to care about him outside his immediate circle. Slowmover 18:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Slowmover, I don't understand what kind of link you want? Ask me and I'll try to search for it. I'm not being deliberately ignorant, but I'm still at school. Abbyemery 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- We are looking for evidence that other people beyond Skinner himself and possibly a small circle of parishoners and fans finds him insteresting enough to write about. If 2 people think he's important, then he probably isn't; if ten thousand people think he is important, he problably is. The dividing line is invisible and fuzzy. To help the wikipedia community evaluate specific people, we look for outside evidence. See below. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence Lexis/Nexis search covering the past 12 months finds several columns written by Skinner for the Western Daily Press and some letters to the editor replying to him in one way or another. He takes on Richard Dawkins, who had just run a 2-part BBC special declaring that religion was immoral, and he defended tony Blair, who was criticized by the press for saying that God would judge the rightness of the Iraq invasion. Also a book review that thought Skinner's book proceeded from a logical fallacy and would only be convincing to the already convinced. (I can't link to Lexis/Nexis but I can provide the dates and page numbers; I don't know if the Western Daily Press has a web presence or not.)
I have not voted yet, leaning toward keep but would like to know what others think in light of this Lexis/Nexis search.Based on the fact that he has published 50+ newspaper columns in addition to a column in the Evangelical Times, and because we have dozens of articles on the Expanded Universe (Star Wars), we can keep this one too. Thatcher131 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)- Good evidence, hadn't seen that. I'd add and re-clarify that he writes for the Evangelical Times which has a circulation of about 40 000. I believe that he is therefore notable as a journalist. People disagree? Abbyemery 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Being a journalist is not notable in itself. It hurts a bit that his only book review comes from a publication he writes for. Slowmover 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good evidence, hadn't seen that. I'd add and re-clarify that he writes for the Evangelical Times which has a circulation of about 40 000. I believe that he is therefore notable as a journalist. People disagree? Abbyemery 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nice one Slowmover. But if you search, you'll find lots of reviews of the book (The Edge of Known Reality and Beyond) coming from independent reviewers/publications. Being a journalist is not notable, but being a notable journalist is something else altogether. Abbyemery 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh good grief, I missed the fact that "Evangelical Press" is the publisher of his book. So I don't find any independent reviews, just what appears to be his own site, the publisher's site, the sites of booksellers and some blogs.....Slowmover 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- weak keep apparently somewhat notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence See the article's talk page. He seems to be notable and quotable in and around Bath but I didn't find evidence of wider penetration; not to say it isn't there, but the burden is on Abby and I've done all I can. Just for the sake of argument I raise this point [43] on the value of importance as a criteria. His existence and viewpoints can certainly be verified based on his public writings. Thatcher131 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's verifiable, seems somewhat notable and exists. Which is more than you can say for all the crappy pokemon characters that have articles. Jcuk 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Although there should also be a disambiguation page, as there is also an American Professor of economics in print and an ecopoet both of whom share that name and each feature higher in Google, it has to be admitted, although this is no accurate measure of notability. I disagree with the point about it being a vanity article as there is no evidence that the user who created the article has any POV-bending connexions with the subject. Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non notable Cursive 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks Verifiable & Notable. Nothing to lose to keep.--Michaelwmoss 08:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No reason at all to delete this Itake 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi guys, it's me again, I'm a bit of a newbie to this and I'm just wondering: is the page kept purely on votes for delete or keep, despite the fact that a lot of the delete votes came in before evidence was displayed? Abbyemery 07:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- No. Only one vote per person is allowed, but the decision is not made by the volume of votes (therefore, multiple votes by one person make no difference anyway). After 5 days, unless it looks like more time is required, an Admin will review the debate, decide if there was a consensus, and act on the consensus. This looks like no consensus to me (IMHO), so it's likely that this page will not be deleted. Slowmover 15:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi guys, it's me again, I'm a bit of a newbie to this and I'm just wondering: is the page kept purely on votes for delete or keep, despite the fact that a lot of the delete votes came in before evidence was displayed? Abbyemery 07:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Seems to be notable but could use more support. Nigelthefish 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep - more or less notable and totally harmless.
♥♥♥Gubb ✍15:28, 22 March 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. JIP | Talk 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Musicological Society of India
Hi - a non-notable subject; stub has remained one-line for a long while. Seems more like a promo for CMSI. Rama's Arrow 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:25, 15 March 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 Keep as nomination withdrawn & no delete votes. Renamed to Mass Transit incident (ECW) per recommendation. -- JLaTondre 23:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mass transit incident
Unsourced confusing nonsense, probable hoax or prank. Apparently copied from the description text of a Youtube video, as found here, that has since been removed "due to terms of use violation" . Sandstein 19:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Nomination retracted per Aplomado. Sandstein 19:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It appears to be a notable event. See here, here and here.
Should be cleaned up, however.I cleaned it up a bit. Aplomado - UTC 19:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral.Okay, it's verifiable, but do we need an article witha all the details on every assault and battery case between two people of limited notoriety? Is there going to be an article about Russell Crowe hitting a hotel employee with a telephone, too? Of course not: that incident is mentioned in his bio and gets one sentence, which is appropriate. This is just too much attention for something too trivial, IMO. Slowmover 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)- Okay, it's better. Kicking and screaming, I change my vote to weak keep. Slowmover 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per aplomado. Bucketsofg 20:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. A significant event in the history of ECW, and arguably pro-wrestling in general. Delayed their arrival on the PPV arena by about two years and possibly kept them from challenging WCW or the (then) WWF. Usonophile 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rename Mass Transit incident, since 'Mass Transit' in context is a proper name. Peter Grey 07:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to ECW Mass Transit incident or Mass Transit incident (ECW) or something similar, as there are many incidents involving mass transit a year, and this is way too general a name. Proto||type 09:41, 16 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neo Communism
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable, real phenomenon, and judging by Google this is the most common usage of the term. Just a very poor article at present. --Bth 15:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It is a meaningless word. It is not a phenomenon nor a political concept. At best it is a nice-sounding buzzword. --Ezeu 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rework, acknowledging that the term is generally used by opponents of this position; links to alleged neo-communists, such as Zhirinovksy, would be a good idea. Alba 17:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not wiktionary. Whether this is the most common usage of the term is highly disputable. Rather its a generic term, used in political discussions to refer to any form of communism or marxist thought that for some reason gets the prefix 'neo'. --Soman 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- This claim that it's not the common usage smacks to me of systemic bias from members of the Anglophone non-Stalinist Left. It's quite clear that the word is commonly and widely used to refer to what's left of the former "Communist" parties in the former USSR and Warsaw Pact. For instance see[44], [45], [46], [47] all from the first page of hits Google gave me for "neocommunist" and all using it that way. Compare against one guy with a blog from Canada (don't click that link, it's popup hell) calling himself "neocommunist" in another sense. I'm well aware of the pitfalls of using Google as an ultimate barometer but in this case it seems indicative. --Bth 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep. seems to be a valid term. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- in mother Russia, article keeps you!. (sorry, I just couldn't resist). In use throughout the world. --Midnighttonight 02:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Ezeu. Certainly not known in the Czech Republic, btw. Pavel Vozenilek 14:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:WINAD. Stifle 00:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Ezeu 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a real ideology and an important phenomenon in some parts of the world. Bucketsofg 20:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Ezeu. Google shows that it is used by websites like frontpagemag and freerepublic to describe just about anyone to their left, and in an Eastern European context it is just as ill-defined; the politician mentioned as an example in the article, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, is in fact normally called an ultranationalist and a right-wing extremist. David Sneek 20:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless it can be rewritten into something substantive. Nobody claims that Zhirinovsky is a communist of any sort. Original author may have been confused with Neo-Marxism or Eurocommunism (terms often synonymous with Neo-Communism). --metzerly 08:54, 16 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Himachal Vikas Congress
Hi - this article has remained a stub and unsourced for over a year. The subject is only semi-notable. Rama's Arrow 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. In addition to significant number of google hits and media coverage (for example [48]), this political party had electoral success in the 2003 state elections. I've added a link in the article to a record of this election. Sliggy 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- political parties are notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - can be expanded with info on what led Sukh Ram to start the party, how its election symbol (telephone) was perceived ironical (as he was alleged to be involved in the telecom scam) and the level of success of the party. A {{sofixit}} case, --Gurubrahma 10:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Needs to be expanded though --DragonWR12LB 10:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and someone who knows about the party should expand. Nigelthefish 18:19, 20 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stringlish
Not notable neologism Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Hoax/Vanity/Nonsense. Can't this be speedied as nonsense? Slowmover 20:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Hoax, non-notable, nonsense. Bucketsofg 20:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Delete immediately.
- Delete- Yet more evidence that Speedy Deletion does not have anywhere near enough criteria. Reyk 23:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Get rid of this nonsense as quickly as possible. --Ricaud 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Fan1967 00:27, 16 March 2006
- Speedy Delete Non-notable. Nonsense. Incredible Article has no basis of trurth that merit to be published
(UTC)
- Delete, essentially a vanity page with no verifiable evidence, it is indeed just something made up at school one day. Does not fit into any speedy category, as far as I can discern (mores the pity). Sliggy 15:11, 16 March 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, although I observe some claimed references at the end. The editor who examined at least one of them found it to be wholly lacking, however. -Splashtalk 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Hypermodernity Club
Self-styled "philosophy discussion group/academic alliance/secret-society". 200 google hits, and that includes hits for a band of the same name; I can't tell if they're related, but if they're not, they're both even less notable. This page appears to have some of their wicked-deep writings; see also the correspondence course ad at [49]. Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. bikeable (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Copied from the Talk page to this AfD:
Unfortunately, some of your patrols seem to be ignorant college students with little knowledge of the subjects they are policing, thus making this entire "wikiproject" absurd by design. Though I find all of this amusing, I have no desire to engage in a long discussion as to the merits of my entry, I merely posted it on a whim after finding its entry strangely absent from your database. I am a university professor and not only am I aware of the club, I attended the hypermodern lecture series with the esteemed Mr. Baudrillard himself at my institution. The presence of the club has been written up in several books, the authenticity of which I do not doubt, and if that is insufficient I will leave the "google-ing" to you.
I wish wikipedia the best into the future and by all means do what you wish with my entry.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulambery01 (talk • contribs). bikeable (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as NN, vanity. Authors commentary (and omniscience regarding other wiki editors) notwithstanding. Slowmover 21:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. According to author, my (ongoing) graduate education in philosophy must be worthless, as I've never heard of this society. Website contains no serious philosophy, just nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricaud (talk • contribs).
- Do Not Delete So since you haven't "heard of it" the entry should be deleted, above poster? That's essentially what this sophomoric debate amounts to, 1.) a 2-second google search, and 2.) philosophy students upset that a professor (rightly) calls them out as unknowing. I, too, had never heard of this organization until reading the entry, but as a New Yorker, I certainly remember the Baudrillard lecture to which the entry refers. I regret that I could not make it. Can you clarify why you consider it "vanity", or "made up in school" because both accusations are tenuous at best?
- Comment. I think we understand it's not "made up". However, is it appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about something of very little significance outside the small group of people who are familiar with it? If it is notable, provide a published reference. See WP:Notability, where the POV nature of "notability" is discussed. IMO, this is NN. Slowmover 18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Will Barry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.15.141.164 (talk • contribs).
-
- You mean, you'd never heard of it until you took the deletion tag off the page? Fair enough. In any case, Paulambery01 says it's been "written up in several books", so now we just need a reference and we'll be satisfied. Otherwise, how could we tell whether it was made up or not? bikeable (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete Against my better judgment I am returning to this debate because Wikipedia, an incredibly ambitious project (apparently) run by students, is certainly intriguing to this old-timer academic who just recently got used to e-mail! I applaud you all. In fact, I'm sure I'd love to have you all in any of my classes for some lively discussions. But to the issue - I pulled this book from my shelf, which unfortunately is in German (loosely translated): "The Decline of the Frankfurt School in European Universities" by Karl Zinner, Uni Saarland, 2002, which contains several pages on the relatively new organization (pgs. 134-145). If anyone is interested please investigate so that this discussion can move beyond such hypersensitive sentiments such as "my (ongoing) graduate education in philosophy must be worthless" and into the merits of the club itself, which are somewhat insidious if taken at face value. Also, one might consider contacting Slippery Rock University philosophy Professor Bernard Freydberg, who surely can offer more on the subject than I. Finally, I want to apologize if I have offended anybody with my previous remarks on this subject.
Paulambery01 18:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery
-
- Please tone down the rhetoric and your suppositions about others whom you do not know. Slowmover 18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I can't imagine why I'm still following this thread, but as for Herr Zinner, the only book by an author of that name in either my university library, the consortium of libraries to which we belong, the Harvard library, or the University of Saarland library is Supercharging of internal combustion engines : fundamentals, calculations, examples / K. Zinner. (Saarland does carry it, you will be pleased to know.) Alas, I suspect K. Zinner's grasp of "continental thought" is as weak as mine. bikeable (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete
-
- You have found the wrong author, Bikeable.
Paulambery01 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery
- Do Not Delete
-
- Friends, and fellow thinkers,
As a Brooklynite, I am amused to find wikipedia entrys for “Rubulad,” a debaucherous party that occurs every few months on the Northside, and the entry for “East Williamsburg Industrial Park,” which is where I live, described condescendingly in its sophomoric entry, and to LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin resolution which could be assailed by number of history professors. Being an academic myself, I am curious to understand why references to both Jean Baudrillard and Martin Heidegger cannot philosophically legitimize an “entry” into your ghoulish dream of information consolidation. Also, I would like to know how many moderators and even "philosophical grad students" are not only versed in Attic and Homeric Greek, but are intimate with those earliest of thinkers, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Thales, Parmenides, Anaximenes, that forcefully mark the inception of "Western thinking."
You allow entire entries which are devoted to “reptoid conspiracies,” which allege that the ruling global elite are actually shape-shifting reptilian creatures who sprung from an ancient genetic experiment, perpetrated by a dim race of ET visitors. The entry for this is quite exhaustive, preposterous, and downright insulting to those of us who do, in fact, descend from the reptoid bloodline, and do not have some insidious dream to enslave humanity through domestic internment camps, internet regulation, and RFID bio-metric ID cards. Please, show some discretion, and permit these people who, like bees flung from their hive, and deep into the mists of fragrant gardens, seek only to pollinate and prolong their sweet, succulent existence.
Most respectfully yours,
Professor J.P.W. Cragglestocker
- Do Not Delete
-
- To whom it may concern,
While I believe it is irrelevant to dicker over the fine points of this entry. I cannot help but remark when the pot calls the kettle black. Just the other day, I was reading how political yes-men had been consistently ammending and omitting submited data for Wikipedia entries on various politicians. What we have here is a fine object lesson in information theory. Wikipedia itself represents the hypermodern attitude toward information - vis a vis the flux, eternal expansion and user generation that categorize the internet as a whole. If the mavens of Wikipedia believe themselves to be one iota holier than the myspace whores, with regard to self-promotion by users, they have a tragic lack of self-insight. The roots of the Wiki project and the internet itself are in a mistrust of absolute truth, cancerous generation and alternative history, which come together like Voltron to form the god Narrative. If ya don't know your roots, then you got no culture. And I'll shed no tears when big Fox Murdoch separates your wheat from its chaff.
sincerely, L. O'Hara
Comment. My sympathies to the Admin who closes this one out. Slowmover 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I have just confirmed gone out of my way to verify that Davidson and Northwestern, as I stated in the initial entry, have *confirmed* chapters for the Hypermodernity Club. Please call them yourselves if you must verify this even further. Moreover, a colleague of mine, the head of philosophy at Tulane university, served as US chapter President for 2004, thus confirming that the group is "notable". As far as anyone with any sort of intellectual acumen is concerned, Now the burden of proof as to the club's worthiness for inclusion into the Wikipedia database falls on the above moderators (students) who so rashly dismissed it.
Edit: Paulambery01 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery
- Great news. Now we just need some way to verify that, and we'll be all set. bikeable (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's up to you, I've already done too much. If your agenda is to prevent this organization from inclusion into your hairbrained database, then so be it.Paulambery01 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/french/maison/events/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulambery01 (talk • contribs).
- Delete per nom and slowmover
- Keepobviously there is notability here. despite ill tempered comments on part of supporters, it isnt our job to define validity of philosophy. One of the worlds largest religions started with one lonely guy and a few believers.ZornArmand 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Zornarmand
-
- Note: this is ZornArmand's 8th edit or so, to 5 different AfD debates. Delete. Hypermodernity is certainly a notable concept and a movement. Paul Ambery's book reference by Karl Zinner doesn't exist on the Library of Congress online catalog. Existence of clubs at two universities doesn't make the overall organization notable. As a "secret society" it's impossible to verify any of this information without actual sources. Mangojuice 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: References to the Hypermodernity Club can be found here: Baudrillard, Jean. Le ludique et le policier. Sens & Tonka. Paris, March 2000 pages 67-71.
Baudrillard, Jean. Le complot de l'art suivi de Entrevues à propos du complot de l'art. Sens & Tonka. Paris, 1999, pgs. 45, 62, Paperback
Baudrillard, Jean. The End of the Millennium or the Countdown. Theory, Culture & Society. February 1998, pp. 1-9
Finally, I echo ZornArmand's educated understanding of what is at play here.
Paulambery01 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the references. I grabbed the closest one at hand, the paper from Theory, Culture & Society, 1998. Odd that it would mention The Hypermodernity Club since it was published at least a year before the article claims the Club was founded. I found a lengthy discussion of the end of modernity and the year 2000, but no mention of THC (I didn't even notice the word "hypermodernity" used, although as Mangojuice points out the concept of hypermodernity itself seems notable). This is all beginning to wear rather thin. bikeable (talk) 00:52, 21 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Widcombe Baptist Church
- Delete as non-notable church. About 200 Google hits, which are all either local pages from Bath, UK, where the church is located, or pages belonging to the church or its congregation. One exception is a review of a non-notable book by the pastor, Jonathan Skinner. That review is here [50] His bio page is up for deletion concurrent with this page. Slowmover 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn church. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I seem to recall an AfD in the last month or so about a similarly named small church in Bath, England.Thatcher131 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think there was another church with this name. I have certainly only created this page once. Abbyemery 20:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Bucketsofg 22:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Arbusto 03:46, 16 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] D-Bone
Delete - Appears to be a non-notable vanity entry, promoting Endless Online. Zelphar 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN nonsense. the.crazy.russian vent here 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN --Ricaud 00:45, 16 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rpg Nation
"RPG server", so notable that it gets 1 new member a day. I wish I could say this article, complete with leet-speak and disparaging comments is a joke one, but I don't think it is. Strong Delete. Hynca-Hooley 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete- taking out the attacks and unforgivable abominations leaves nothing in the article. Reyk 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Are people really this desperate to get on WP? --Ricaud 00:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Re-write is a sub-stub. This site is not notable and unlikely to meet WP:WEB any time soon. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:52, 16 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fendez notepad
non-notable software, possible advert RJFJR 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:VSCA. Eivindspeak! 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable software, and the original author of the article appears to be the author of the softare. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn Notepad clone. Hello-world clone equivalent (though I appreciate the work it must have taken). Pavel Vozenilek 18:34, 18 March 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. Flowerparty■ 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Haters
"Noise and conceptual art troupe". Hard to tell if the WP:MUSIC criteria are even applicable, never mind passed by this article. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean-up. The group has an allmusic.com listing. And personally, I've heard of this seminal noise act before. The article is messy, but I think the group itself is worthy of inclusion. - Rynne 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - important and influential noise music group (see my defense on the article's talk page). Cleanup is forthcoming. MrBook (article creator) 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Notable outfit in the noise music genre. Cnwb 22:19, 15 March 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, without prejudice to the creation at any time of a neutral article about the company. I appreciate that whatever decision I reached this would likely end up on DRV, so I will explain my findings and how I reached this decision. First of all, I excluded alleged sockpuppets and weighted down one opinion for the reasons stated. I then checked the contribs of names I didn't recognise (which revealed no new cause for concern). I then looked at the numbers; deletion is the favoured outcome numerically but not by a landslide. Finally, I used my discretion in evaluating the arguments and who made them. AFD regulars favour deletion, whereas Australian contributors have argued that this is a reasonably notable company. My decision ultimately is that both sides have a case; the article shouldn't be allowed to stand as a POV fork, but that the company in question is not undeserving of an article. My summation of the debate is, therefore, that the article is not acceptable as it stands but an article on this company could be acceptable; the result of the debate is therefore delete without prejudice to a clean start. WP:NOT a soapbox is most relevant here. kingboyk 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rugs Galore
- Delete - Non notable company liquidation. Only reason for creation is User:2006BC and User:DarrenRay were unsuccessful in incorporating POV edits about McVeigh in Dean McVeigh (currently protected redirect) and Melbourne University student organisations. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Note that the article contains only a couple of sentences about Rugs Galore while the rest is about controversy re liquidation proceedings, McVeigh's involvement and a big photo of McVeigh. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A read of the blog of 2006BC[51], who created this article, makes it very clear that there is strong agenda and animosity towards McVeigh. Thanks heavens that vitriol hasn't found its way onto WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ya know, an actual nomination would've been nice here, rather than just leaping into the whole "making a vote" thing. You know that bit where many experienced AfDers generally refrain from doing the bolded "delete", and explain in detail why they've nominated someone's hard work for deletion? Yeah, I know it's not as common as it should be, or once was. But it's a nice dream ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not a lot of hard work as this is a rehash of what was in the Dean McVeigh article plus a large verbatim legal extract. I reiterate, the company is non notable, the liquidation is of mild interest due to the removal of McVeigh but there should be no confusion that this is simply an attempt to circumvent the toning down of the McVeigh POV in other articles by editors with a vested interest. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Could the above nomination please refer to provisions of WP:DEL. Upon closely reading this policy, this nomination appears likely not to even raise issues that could make the article capable of being deleted. Please respond or withdraw the afd which will otherwise be seen as disruption. DarrenRay 02:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Garglebutt has just made a comment so I'd love to see him actually explain why this article should be deleted other than by making a personal attack on me. Thanks. --2006BC 08:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox covers most of the basis for AFD, other than questioning notability in general, pretty well. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep- A big case about the conduct of Administrators in making deeds of company arrangement. I'm not a lawyer but this case is well known. Please don't let politics interfere with the making of the encyclopedia. AChan 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely per User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Re last point, indeed. Hence the AFD. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. This company may well meet WP:CORP given the statement by the Victorian Minister about practices and that there are other references to them. However, in its current form, I think that it exists mainly as a way of putting up negative information about Dean McVeigh the liquidator of the Melbourne University Student Union. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC). Capitalistroadster 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment My tip is to read the cases involved, not something I have done yet in full. Understand them first before saying whether not notable. Watching Garglebutt's other edits, I see he is very vengeful person against Darren Ray. His views should be discounted for this personal view. I think everyone should grow up. AChan 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong KeepThis is clearly an abuse of the article for deletion process and a very unfortunate act by its proposer. Notable company, notable liquidation, notable litigation about the liquidation. I would like to see those proposing its deletion actually state otherwise and participate in the discussion. These are reported cases from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal etc. They are important cases which were the subject of several media reports as well at the time aside from being published in relevant law reports which clearly demonstrate their notability in legal terms. There are very, very few cases of a company administrator ever being removed, as anyone familiar with the area of insolvency law will tell you, the threshold is so high that it is nearly impossible to cross. If you have issues with the content, change it but don't abuse this Afd process to pursue some sort of sad vendetta. I suggest the proposer read WP:POINT. DarrenRay 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely - as an alleged sockmaster/POV warrior; see User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets and RFA. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)- Agree with Achan. On the face of it, the company seems reasonably notable (but I haven't looked into the issues). However, the use of this article to continue a vendetta against Dean McVeigh is exceedingly inappropriate and troubling, not to mention immature, as is Garglebutt's apparent crusade against Darren and Ben. Yes, student pollies make my teeth itch too, but, c'mon. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Considered as a 'comment' rather than a strong opinion. No argument made here as to why the article should be kept (and "haven't looked into it") but some very welcome "stay calm" advice. As my Aussie friends would say, "it's all good". --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I take issue with the suggestion I am on a crusade. I have deliberately avoided the articles subject to POV warring to remove myself from such accusations, however I'm not going to allow this to carry over into new articles that have little merit in their own right. There are far more notable companies that are not adequately represent on WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Being used by User:2006BC and User:DarrenRay as a soapbox for something that has little relevance to Rugs Galore, but is just moving attacks from one removed page to another. Xtra 02:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't write the article, although I did read it carefully before expressing a view here. DarrenRay 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- [52] An afd is not meant to be a dispute about content. This is a bogus deletion proposal that bears no relationship with WP:DEL. DarrenRay 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: How is the information not relevant to Rugs Galore. It looks all about Rugs Galore. I don't get it. AChan 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, apparently notable; AfD is not appropriate venue to address content disputes. Monicasdude 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm giving less weight to this because I've never seen the editor in question vote to delete anything. Secondly, the article on Dean McVeigh was redirected by AFD consensus; if this article is an attempt to recreate McVeigh material by the backdoor it most certainly is an issue for AFD. Finally, "apparently notable" doesn't give me much confidence that the editor actually checked. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)- Delete. Barely worthwhile, and only if it could be kept to a article on the title, but bad-faith editors wanting to make it 95% about McVeigh means its gotta go. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
KeepSorry I missed all the fun. But on a serious note, I would just like to say I thought this article would actually help resolve the issue about the missing information from Dean McVeigh's article after it was merged with Melbourne University student organisations. It wasn't appropriate to leave the information about Rugs Galore in there and I thought this was an ideal solution. If the article incorrectly states what happens in the Supreme Court cases, and I don't believe it does, why don't we have that discussion. Separating Dean McVeigh who was its Administrator and was central to what went wrong in its Administration does seem rather a strange objective. Anyway, see you at the Talk page and let's resolve it amicably. --2006BC 07:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely per User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)- Keep. Ditto what Mark said. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Cleanup and Keep - Well known Australian company, lots of reporting in the media. - Synapse 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. ditto. JSIN 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, with supervision. Rugs Galore is certainly notable enough to warrant an article. That article should not, obviously, be used as a vehicle for thinly-disguised attacks on Dean McVeigh. At the time I write this, the article has been reduced to a stub, but still with more information about the liquidation than the actual company. So, some neutral observers would do well just to keep an eye on it. Stevage 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless all reference to McVeigh is removed. This smear campaign has gone on too long on Wikipedia. Harro5 10:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and per Ianbrown above. — Mar. 20, '06 [00:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
-
- Comment. Why all reference to McVeigh removed? He was the administrator. Crazy not to mention him when central to it. AChan 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Because the article as it was nominated is just a hate piece against McVeigh. Until you lot can trust yourselves to be neutral and not abuse Wikipedia's openness to attack a RL enemy, you're better off not mentioning him at all. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is terrible and is nearly an A6 attack page. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because it's a not an article about "Rugs Galore" it's a backdoor article about (the increasingly legendary on Wikipedia) Dean McVeigh. --kingboyk 08:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the responses here are suspected sockpuppets per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DarrenRay_and_2006BC. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:41, 23 March 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. Jinian 22:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mike Shaw (heart operation patient)
Yet another article by User:Torshaw - this time it's about his brother. If he's world famous as the article claims then there must be something wrong with this Google search. Delete Spondoolicks 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete there are soo many things wrong with this article I don't know where to start. (It's even signed). The Doctor in notable, the patient is usually not. Eivindspeak! 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)- Keep, appears at least minimally notable, as are most members of the Minnesota Music Hall of Fame. If having an annoying brother was a deletion standard, we could start with Jeb Bush. Monicasdude 14:48, 16 March 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 American School in London, somewhat surprisingly given the course of things. I do wonder if those suggesting a merge are short of due diligence in determining whether this actually has any merit. Nevertheless, I'll simply apply the redirect. -Splashtalk 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
[edit] The Scroll
Delete-Non notable middle school paper PlasmaDragon
Delete- I go to the school right now, and the paper is not notable. Please notice that our school IP address is the one that has made all of these edits related to the school newspaper. Its probably some kid from the school paper self advertising. It's fine enough just to keep the content we have in American School in London and forget about The Scroll.--Urthogie 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; the Scroll is a notable middle school newspaper, as it wins awards and the editing staff are generally invited to a journalistic conference because of their hard work. Saying that someone on the paper is self advertising is absurd: it is a free newspaper given out to all ASL middle schoolers. I don't know what kind of personal vendetta you have against the scroll, but there is no need for you to do this. The Scroll wikipedia entry is not violating any wiki or school rules, and therefore your arguments are not valid. (Nakan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.148.37.20 (talk • contribs).
-
- Seeing as how it has a very small circulation among only a few hundred people at one school, it is completely non notable for anyone who doesn't already know about it (i.e. who doesn't go to the school). Rules are irrelevant here: notability is. Therefore, my arguments are valid.-PlasmaDragon 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- except that the scroll also gets given to other newspapers in the US in exchange for theres. if the other newspaper staff wants to know more, they can come here.(David)
"KEEP IT" What on earth do you have against the scroll!?! The Scroll is a notable paper and scored first class in a recent rating. it also won best of show for middle school newspapers during an NSPA confrence. I agree with the above when it says that " Saying that someone on the paper is self advertising is absurd: it is a free newspaper given out to all ASL middle schoolers." He has a perfect point; why on earth would a FREE newspaper that contains NO advertisments and sole purpose is to inform the population of the american school about goings on, want to advertise. The Scroll is a fabulous example of students trying (and succeding) to be heard in their community. scroll editors spend at least 2 hours a week working on the paper plus many of their weekends trying to put out the best paper they can. if you think that the paper is "bad" then take it up with the editors, but keep this page open to all that want to read about it. When you say "some kid" you are talking about 14 students selected out of 400 to represent their fellow students and voice issue concerning them. Please, at least treat the editors with some respect. (David)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.46.9 (talk • contribs).
-
- This isn't about the quality of the paper, or what we think about the editors. I just respectfully think that this newspaper is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. And I think that when Urthogie said "self-advertising", he meant "vanity." Vanity pages are prohibited on wikipedia, by policy. Ergo, this article, which is in violation of policy, should be deleted.-PlasmaDragon 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I don't think the paper would advertise, but some editor would, just to feel special. Vanity.--Urthogie 18:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. What is the NSPA? I couldn't find an article for it here. If the organization that gave the prize isn't notable enough for one, the paper who uses that prize as its sole reason for notability is not either.-PlasmaDragon 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- http://www.studentpress.org/nspa/ Visit this for information on the NSPA. It is the largest student press orgainization in the US. I agree that if The Scroll isn't notable enough to have its own page, it should be included on the school page. Oh, and I can't figure out how to take the irrelivent notice off of the top of the page, but it should. This is not a page for slamming people. (Alex)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.249.71.9 (talk • contribs).
just a wuick thing about the NSPA, it is the sumber one Student newspaper prize giving organization in the world. when you apply for the New York Times (possibly the best paper on the planet) you are asked as one of the questions, weither or not you have ever recived 'any awards such as ones from the NSPA.'
We cannot; one of you have already deleted all mention of the Scroll on the American School in London page. There are other Middle School newspapers on this website; maybe you should target them instead of us. Or perhaps, you should just grow up and stop acting like an eight year old. (Nakan).
- It'd be much easier to target them if personal attacks and baseless accusations weren't made everytime we voted someones vanity page for deletion. Also, please note that this IP that just posted is from the American school in london. It's incredibly immature to go creating vanity pages just to see yourself on an article.--Urthogie 10:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Ben, may i say one thing. this is not a vanity page. this page was not created with the purpose to promore ourselfs. we simply wanted people to know more about our paper. if you have an issue with, dare i say it, making information public and availible, i suggest you stop waundering around wiki.
Excuse me, dear sir, but direct me to the place where it says my name in glorious letters on the Scroll wikipedia page? This is about the Scroll itself. A concious decision was made when the page was made; we didn't use any names because we thought than we might avoid the accusation that you are making right now. This is not an attempt to make us feel better, but to inform other people from other schools about the Scroll. Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate encyclopedia, where every term can be defined. The Scroll is just as worthy to hold a single page of explanation as any other newspaper. There are some pages on Wikipedia which take up a lot more room and serve a lot less purpose than this one. Perhaps you should dedicate your noble efforts to those sites more worthy of your exaulted attention. (Nakan)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.85.24.83 (talk • contribs).
- You said it perfeclty. This is an encyclopedia. Key word, encyclopedia. And some things aren't notable.--Urthogie 15:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware I could say something perfeclty. Look, if this is some sort of vendetta against all middle school and high school newspapers, then I could accept it. But its not; for some reason you have singled out your own middle school newspaper for abuse. Why don't you go after the Trojan Times? They are a middle school newspaper. They have virtually the same layout as us. Go and flag them for deletion, just let us have our few kilobytes of space.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.148.37.20 (talk • contribs).
- To add to the above's point, the Trojan Times is much more of a vanity page than the Scroll's. The site clearly says,"Pierce Middle School's "Trojan Times" is widely regarded as one of – if not the – best middle school newspaper in the United States." The Scroll page doesn't have opinionated comments such as the one above. I believe that the page is enlightening other Middle School papers to that fact that there is a MS paper in the American School in London. I don't think it was a vanity page at all. I don't believe that it was created for this reason. I appreciate your opinions, Urthogie, but your points aren't convincing me. I didn't see anything on the Scroll page that caused me to believe what you said. (Alex)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.70.202 (talk • contribs).
- I am not just picking on the Scroll; if I see another non notable middle school paper, I will recommend it for deletion, but yours is the only one I have chanced upon. If I see a page that "take[s] up a lot more room and serve[s] a lot less purpose than this one" I shall recommend it for deletion as well. You are welcome to go ahead an recommend the pages you refer to for deletion (you might want to register an account first). However, the fact that there are worse articles does not mean that this one is automatically considered of sufficient notability for wikipedia. The page itself does not provide much information that cannot be determined just by looking at a copy of the paper (e.g. the contents and sections of the paper) nor any information that would interest people who have not read a copy. This is because, and I mean no offense, the Scroll is pretty much an average middle school paper. It has interviewed a few moderately famous people, and has won a minor award, but on the whole it is not very distinguished from any of the other tens of thousands of middle school papers out there. It has not been the topic of any sort of news that extends beyond the school, nor does its readership extend beyond the school (and perhaps a few people in the schools that you send a copy of your paper to). Beyond the few people that already know about your paper, nobody cares about it. Sorry. It's a bit harsh, but it's a bit true. Nobody cares. Your paper is not famous or unusual enough to warrant an article on wikipedia. If you want other schools to have a place online where they can learn more about the Scroll, I recommend setting up a website or something and printing the URL in the paper. But wikipedia is not a place for your webpage and is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is not the place for this kind of thing. And if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the rules, policies and community of wikipedia itself.-PlasmaDragon 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As i said before, the awards it wins are not minor ("and has won a minor award," ) they are the best that is avaible for any student newpaper. "Beyond the few people that already know about your paper, nobody cares about it. Sorry. It's a bit harsh, but it's a bit true. " Mr ben it would seem that you think that your veiws represtent the rest of the world. Sir, they do not. it seems to me like you think that you are the ultimate wiki man and you alone have to power to say what is right and what is wrong, what people should read, what people should not. sounds a tad bit like Hitler to me.
- PlasmaDragon, you've given a really good argument. Go ahead and delete the page, because no matter what we do, the Scroll (and I say this in the most respectful way I can) isn't important enough to be in this online encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.70.202 (talk • contribs).
Well, good sir plasmadragon (nice name, by the way, extraordinarily manly), you have outdone yourself once again. In suggesting that this is the first middle school paper that you "chanced" upon, also serves to suggest that you did not attempt to merely look through wiki's search engine. The first item that you find when searching "middle school newspaper" is "the trojan times," which is nearly identical to the page that the Scroll has set up. Why don't you go and flag their site for deletion, and dash their humble dreams upon the rocks? You claim that the Scroll is a "average middle school newspaper," which has won "a minor award." Well, that really depends on your definition of minor. My definition of minor is something that is not important; perhaps something that no-one notices. Well, it would be difficult for someone not to notice the Scroll if it was announced in front of 60,000 people who all heard about it win this "minor" award (an award you obviously know nothing about, and you merely assume that it a minor one). You are correct in claiming that what you wrote is a "bit true," but incorrect in claiming that no-one cares. Four hundred people, plus 200 faculty members all care. The award board who gave us our "minor" award cares. The dozens of schools we have sent the Scroll to all care. No sir, you are not picking an argument with the Scroll, but rather with all middle school newspapers; you are suggesting that even a newspaper that wins one of the most prestigious awards available to it is still worthless, minor, and not even deserving of a wikipedia entry, is suggesting that no middle school newspapers amount to anything. You see, sir, all middle school newspapers have the same limits; they do not really reach a large audience past their schools, none of them are particularly famous or unusual, and as you say, they have no worth. Indeed, while I might have a problem with Wikipedia itself, than you, dear sir, have a problem with all middle school newspapers, not just this one. And if that is a battle you are willing to take, than good luck to you, sir. (Nakan)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.148.37.20 (talk • contribs).
- being smug won't win you any support. I suggest you nominate the trojan times for deletion if you don't like it existing.--Urthogie 21:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have listed Trojan Times for deletion too. I hope that makes you happy. As for a "minor" award, well, it's not exactly the Pulitzer, now is it? In front of 60,000 people? Was it given to you in a stadium? Anyway, since the article about the scroll claims a circulation of 1,000, but you say that only 600 people "care", I must confess that I regard any numbers you give me with suspicion. Oh, and 600/6,000,000,000 (the number of people who care divided by the population of the earth) = 0.0000001. So, on a global scale (this is, after all, the world wide web), virtually nobody cares. And yes, I have a problem with all middle school papers, and it is a battle that I am "willing to take." I daresay I am not alone.-PlasmaDragon 21:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge in school article as above. Non-notable on it's own, meatpuppet supported. --InShaneee 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per above. Chairman S. Talk 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
But this does not end at the merger. There was a mention of the Scroll on the American School in London page, but it was deleted, by one of the posters above. The Scroll received the award in front of 60,000 people, all of whom were invited for their contribution to the school newspaper community. And your little division problem hardly strikes fear into my heart; seeing as only a billion or so have internet acess, your division problem works against you; the most any internet site can garner is 1/6 of the world population. You claim that the award that the Scroll wins (most every year), is "not the pulitzer." Well, of course it isn't. The Scroll cannot win a pulitzer, because that prize is not available to them. However, the Scroll can compete against schools from other continents in an attempt to win the prize that you are slamming. You obviously have not done very much research on the very thing that you say does not matter. And saying that no-one cares is incorrect; apparently you care quite a lot, otherwise maybe you wouldn't continue in this persecution of your own school newspaper. You might be claiming that the Scroll, and other pages like it are wasting space on the Wiki server; perhaps you don't realize that this page that you have created takes up at least double the space that our small, supposedly insignifigant page takes up. At the beginning of this argument, you claimed that you "chanced upon" this page. I find this highly unlikely; we put this page up nary a week ago, and you flagged it for deletion less than two days afterwords. Someone told you about this page, and you took as an oppurtunity to continue your personal vendetta against the Scroll. The Scroll is as notable as a Middle School newspaper can be, and maybe you should just accept that and stop whining about Middle School newspapers. Just allow the few of MS newspapers that are trying to expand into the internet to do so, instead of hindering them at every step. (Nakan)
- Listen, Nakan (assuming thats your name). Lemme make the following clear:
- Whoever removed the text from the article was in error. It would be restored(without the link) if/when this article is deleted.
- Yes, this discussion has taken more time than the making of The Scroll, unfortunately. However, if you think of it in the larger context, this sets a precedent and makes it easier to delete other non-notables in the future.
Peace, --Urthogie 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please. Now I am part of some sort of conspiracy that is carrying out a vendetta against your paper and only your paper. Give me a break. Anyway, I will prove how much I don't care by not posting here again. When someone starts spouting conspiracy theories, meaningful dialog has come to an end.-PlasmaDragon 17:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Urthogie, do not try and make out as if the removal of the text from the American School in London page was an error; you were the one who deleted it. And why do you have any doubts about what my name is? You could look me up in the directories right now, if you so desired (assuming you go to my school, which I think is very possible, Mr. Greenberg). I think that my arguements above speak for themselves, and if you have any desire to dislodge them you must give proof that the Scroll is non-notable. As I said above, the Scroll is as notable as it could possibly be; it cannot go beyond where it currently is. Just let us be, for the love of God; this is your school as well, have a little spirit. (Nakan)
- As you can see, the account that did it was the School account([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_School_in_London&diff=44020878&oldid=43778563)). I remind you to assume good faith per Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In fact, just to prove you wrong, I'll revert whoever removed it in the first place. Don't assume.--Urthogie 18:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles for your journalism class to read
After you're done reading these, you'll see that the wiki-world is not a place for self promotion. In fact, its discouraged that people write about things they're involved in, or about themselves-- creates bias. --Urthogie 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
We are NOT self promoting; we are merely presenting information. There is no benefit that we can gain by self promoting, no amount of money, or cars, or even women. You make the same point again and again; please, spare me your stupidity.
- User:DavidMax has stated that this is promotion for the paper. And yes, it is promotion to be prejudiced in favor of an organization you are a member of.--Urthogie 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Who is David Max? (Nakan)
Plasmadragon, you merely prove that you cannot let this go by checking this page every few hours, and posting everytime I respond. I will repeat my point: the Scroll is a notable MS paper. It has every right to be here. You are not part of this "conspiracy," but urthogie is. He went on to the ASL page and took out all references to the scroll. And you have not adressed how you found this page; surely it was not by an honest search?
- He found this page because it was marked by a {{prod}} template. It doesn't help your case when you make uninformed accusations. By the way, who ever heard of a one man conspiracy?--Urthogie 15:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Who do you think the person who proposed this page for deletion was? This is not a conspiracy, and stop calling it one. the fact remains that someone (and according to the history of the page, Urthogie) deleted all references to the Scroll on the ASL wiki page. Please, just let this one go! What personal motivation do you have for keeping this fight going? The newspaper is notable. The newspaper deserves a wiki page as much as any other. And repeatedly claiming that the newspaper is non-notable and has won a minor award (an award it wins most every year), will not win you any respect. Just let this one go; prove yourself the bigger man and walk away. And Urthogie, if you do not go to this school you do not know if the Scroll is notable or not; you have never seen an issue.
- I'm done arguing with you, just like Plasma. Your arguments aren't even grounded in truth-- I recently reverted back whoever removed The Scroll from the article. Peace, --Urthogie 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Urthogie, did you not claim at the beginning of this argument that you go to the school right now? So wouldn;t it be easy for you to delete the Scroll information? You can say that you are done with this, but you are not. This is not an argument about me or my aggressive posting habits, but about the Scroll. And merely claiming again and again that the Scroll is not notable (when in fact it certainly is, as proved above) does not automatically make you the victor. (Nakan)
- Wikipedia has a policy called Assume good faith. You're not following it, and as a result you lend yourself to false assumptions. Like I said, I'm done arguing with you because of your immature approach-- I am confident that the administrator reviewing this discussion will opt for deletion. Good day,--Urthogie 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, woe is me! I'm not the wikipedia policy. Oh no! If I were you, I'd refuse to talk to me, because I have commited a most heinous crime! Go on, walk away, with your tail between your legs, refuse to speak to me. I am not considering you in good faith, because to date you have not given a plausible why the Scroll should be deleted. The Scroll has won many major awards and has achieved the highest possible acclaim that a MS newspaper can achieve. If you really think that it is not worth a few kilobytes of wiki's server, than you are a cold, black hearted man. Walking away does make you a bigger man, but you have not finished the argument; you have not rebuffed any of my points. (Nakan)
- Well, I know I promised not to post here again, but I noticed some inaccuracies in your statements, Nakan, that I simply could not stop myself from correcting. First of all, according to the article, the Scroll has not won many awards. It has won one, or at the most two. One of those is the NSPA first class ranking. According to this webpage (you'll have to scroll--no pun intended--down a lot, or better yet, just do edit->find for the word "class"), first class is the second best ranking given (the best is All-American, if you must know). Nor is it given exclusively: on the Internet, a cursory search revealed many other publications that had received a first class ranking too. If first class ranking alone were criteria for a wikipedia article, half of the wikipedia server hard drives would be clogged with a million entries of school publications. I exaggerate, of course, but do you see my point?
Then there is the claim that the Scroll was awarded best in show. That is not true. It was given third place best in show for junior high papers.[53] So, as we can see, the scroll has won one minor award (if the NSPA rankings are so important, why does the NSPA barely acknowledge their existance?), and almost won one other minor award (I doubt that the junior high papers were the highlight of the evening). Anyway, even if it had achieved the highest possible praise that could be given to a junior high paper, it would still not be notable. There are some things that, due to their limited geographical relevance, are simply not notable enough for wikipedia. For example, if I put together the best possible computer, overclocked it with liquid nitrogen, and got the highest 3D Mark score in the world, would my computer deserve an article on wikipedia? No, because it would still just be my computer that only I, my friends, my family, and possibly my neighbors would care about. It would do pretty much anything any other mid- to high-end computer purchased in the last year or two could do, except at a few more frames per second. The Scroll is the same way. It has nothing that any other middle school paper wouldn't also have (photos, editorials), and it isn't even the best. There is nothing notable about it. Who, outside of your school, do you think would see this wiki page and say "Wow! A first class middle school paper! With photos!"?
Maybe if your paper won 10 "All-American" rankings and was inducted into the Hall of Fame, as described on the NSPA webpage, it would be notable. Or maybe if there was some sort of landmark 1st Amendment court case involving your paper, it would be notable. But until then, it is not. And we cannot give you a few kilobytes. If we gave a few kilobytes to every middle school paper that won a minor award, then, as I touched upon earlier, there would be an overwhelming glut of articles on papers that few would care about, and wikipedia would be seen as only a massive jungle of vanity pages, from which the rare flowers of good articles on notable topics would be all but impossible to locate and extract.
In conclusion: the Scroll is not nearly as notable as its staff would have you believe, there is nothing about it that makes it sufficiently notable, and this article should therefore be deleted. --PlasmaDragon 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry. I do not know when I made a big mistake and made this personal, but reading back over this argument, I realize that I have looked like an idiot. I have been attacking the personal lives of people I don't even know, and making claims that are not grounded in fact. While I still disagree about the notability of the Scroll, I am not going to argue any more. My above arguments have ruined my credibilty, and I simply did not acknowledge the links that you sent me. You have tried to make this more a true argument, but everytime you did I attempted to call you out on personal details that I do not know for certain. My arguments have reflected poorly upon the whole Scroll staff, and I am truly sorry. I realize now that the Scroll wikipedia entry has no chance of surviving; perhaps if I had argued better, with your level of research, then it would have been different, but as it stands now, the Scroll wiki entry has no hope. I am throwing in the towel, and I can only hope that this final apology will return some dignity in the eyes of my peers and fellow wikipedia users.
I am truly sorry, (Nakan)
- It's all good -- we're here to judge articles, not people.--Urthogie 16:39, 24 March 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 USERFY. JIP | Talk 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James tenyenhuis
A college student with a piecemeal claim to notability. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Grandmasterka 21:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. Only claim to notability is a minor student award. Mangojuice 21:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- James Tenyenhuis will show you bastards. all of yous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickthebootlegger (talk • contribs).
- Cool, when he shows us something notable you can put up a new entry. Nigelthefish 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy if subject of the article is the author. Delete otherwise, you bastards. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy or delete as per Bugwit, fails WP:BIO. Sliggy 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. --Ardenn 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- nom isn't even an english word. italicize or post on fu.wikipedia.org --fishmarket 2:19, 16 March 2006 (utC?)
- Um, it's a commonly used abbreviation for "nomination". Grandmasterka 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- nom isn't even an english word. italicize or post on fu.wikipedia.org --fishmarket 2:19, 16 March 2006 (utC?)
- Delete per nom. —GrantNeufeld 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- i love you james... i hope this all works out for you. do not let these big guys with their fancy talk discourage you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.160.124 (talk • contribs).
- Delete Vanity page per nom. Nigelthefish 19:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- love supersedes vanity, self- authored entries, and notoriety significances. James loves. He is loved. Who needs notability when one has love? I hope all the computer administrators find comfort in their regulatory revilements. They will never experience the love James possesses and gives and receives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.117.170.221 (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 MOVE to Wikipedia namespace. The article is in the wrong namespace but otherwise I don't see much problems with it. JIP | Talk 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How to create a wikipedia article
Self-referential in the article namespace, irrelevant given WP:YFA and others Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Well meaning initiative, but this shouldnt be in the article namespace. Could proberbly be userfied. --Ezeu 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- [I]rrelevant given WP:YFA" and "Could proberbly be userfied" are examples of the techspeak that motivated me to create the page in the first place. The process for creating my first wiki articles was tortuous at best (though thanks go to Dismas for his/her help). As an online teacher, I think you need to have a short but inclusive article to get people started. I could not find one. So, I merely tried to create instructions with the first-timer in mind. User:Grapeman
- I agree. Wikipedia jargon is a problem. Parhaps you can edit Wikipedia:Your first article to make it better. --Ezeu 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- That is exactly my point. The article in itself is worthwhile; it is just not in the right namespace. Batmanand | Talk 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what in the right namespace is referring to, but I changed the subheading and made it less repetitive. Hopefully that addresses Batmanand's point. As for editing Wikipedia:Your first article, I wouldn't know where to begin! Moreover, Wiki probably needs an extensive resource like that; I just think it needs something else, too... something a lot simpler and more introductory. Once people have something that's up and running according to minimum specs, then I believe they'll use the details and multi-links in Wikipedia:Your first article. --Cheers, Grapeman
- Grapeman, there is a glossary at Wikipedia:Glossary, you may find it of some use. --Ezeu 02:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what in the right namespace is referring to, but I changed the subheading and made it less repetitive. Hopefully that addresses Batmanand's point. As for editing Wikipedia:Your first article, I wouldn't know where to begin! Moreover, Wiki probably needs an extensive resource like that; I just think it needs something else, too... something a lot simpler and more introductory. Once people have something that's up and running according to minimum specs, then I believe they'll use the details and multi-links in Wikipedia:Your first article. --Cheers, Grapeman
- That is exactly my point. The article in itself is worthwhile; it is just not in the right namespace. Batmanand | Talk 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Wikipedia jargon is a problem. Parhaps you can edit Wikipedia:Your first article to make it better. --Ezeu 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A nice effort, but the article is in the wrong namespace, and we already have Wikipedia:Guide to layout which covers this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Honest effort, but in wrong namespace and unencyclopedic (more like a user manual) -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:Introduction -- 80.168.226.232 10:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Full marks to the author for trying to write good tutorials, but it should be in the Wikipedia or Help spaces, and without a redirect. DJ Clayworth 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Good writing and effort, but shouldn't be published inside wikipedia itself. ---Dana 02:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The point that current instructions are to complex for novices is valid. I, after two years here, have often problem to find out how to do something new. Pavel Vozenilek 18:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Errr, any reason not to just move it to Wikipedia:How to create a Wikipedia article rather than delete it? Friday (talk) 17:45, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nicholas J. Hopper
Non-notable professor. Article was nominated for deletion previously (see here), but the debate was largely about academics in general, and was moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics and no consensus was reached. Nicholas Hopper is a promising young crypto researcher, and an assistant prof (not tenured) at UMN, and has about 10 technical papers of varying quality; the best has about 50 citations, which makes it a good paper, but not an especially important one. Not much more could be added to this article, apart from a CV-style list of papers. As nominator, I abstain; I'm relisting this because it didn't get consensus (or quality discussion) last time. Mangojuice 21:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Until the notability criteria for academics are sorted out, I would consider there to be no policy on them; as such, I am following my own instinct, which says delete in this case. Batmanand | Talk 21:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Batmanand Bucketsofg 22:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Assistant professor, PhD two years ago. I find less than a dozen published papers. Doesn't appear that he's "more well known and more published than an average college professor." He looks more like he is an average college professor. Fan1967 00:35, 16 March 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 Deleted per CSD G1/A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clayton "The Clan Man" Varnon
Unless anyone can prove otherwise, I think this is made up. IronGiant 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Hoax. --Ezeu 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Ezeu. Bucketsofg 00:27, 16 March 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 keep. Bad faith nomination WP:POINT. Ezeu 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The New York Times
Anti-notable. This AFD is being placed because the NYT is anti-notable, namely, that anyone mentioned in its pages, despite its preeminence, popularity, and market penetration, is instantly cast into non-notability. The precedent for this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review#John Bambenek where the subject was deleted because he was in the New York Times on the front page and that made him non-notable. It is time that the NYT come off the pages of wikipedia like the blackhole of notability it is. -- Alpha269 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Very funny. Batmanand | Talk 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep You're joking, right? dcandeto 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, not joking. If being a front-page resource for the NYT makes one unnotable, this paper is not notable. -- Alpha269 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- So presumably by your logic, being a citizen of the UK does not make me notable, and so the UK itself is not notable? Batmanand | Talk 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Does the UK list you prominently anywhere? Does it use you as a prominent resource in notable government work? -- Alpha269 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- So presumably by your logic, being a citizen of the UK does not make me notable, and so the UK itself is not notable? Batmanand | Talk 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, not joking. If being a front-page resource for the NYT makes one unnotable, this paper is not notable. -- Alpha269 22:10, 15 March 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. Flowerparty■ 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Kinkella
Non-notable athlete, and it's also a repost. Prod was removed. dcandeto 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I quote: "remember his name because in the 2008 season he plans to take the AFL by storm.". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Batmanand | Talk 22:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Post-storm, he'll be wiki-worthy. Until then, Delete. Bucketsofg 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if the information in the article is verifiable, he is not notable per WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 16 March 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. JIP | Talk 06:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My360
Prod contested. It's a website. NickelShoe 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, it does not meet criteria in WP:WEB. - Eagletalk 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Alexa rank of over 3m, for a start. Doesn't assert notability, other than saying it's trying to copy another site's claimed success. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is not a copy of another site's success, it is made by the same group of people, with a different focus. It is a definition who we are, as a community, a group of people and a place where we all hang around as a part of our lives. If a definition for community of hundreds of people can't exist on wikipedia, i don't know where we can. - Pspmeet
- Delete do not meet WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 14:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing wrong with this article and it does definewhat it is. Plus its a nice site. -that random guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.79.73 (talk • contribs).
- Speedy delete no claim of notability. However, I wonder about the relevance of Alexa rankings for foreign sites: who is the Alexa tool marketed to? Mangojuice 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Absent any citations that even remotely suggest notability, delete ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 22 March 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. (aeropagitica) 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greg Brahmin
Not a real person, or just very non-notable--152.163.100.13 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No attempt to assert notability; no unique google hits. Batmanand | Talk 22:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. As above. Shanes 22:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Batmanand. —LrdChaos 19:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —GrantNeufeld 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Nigelthefish 17:45, 20 March 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. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jason cobarrubias
Tagged for speedy, but contested. Geogre's Law failure, no real evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. bikeable (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme predjudice. Article creator keeps disputing the speedy tag but refuses to engage in any other way. Long, illiterate article about an extremely non-notable person. Herostratus 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. (And there's a serious capitalization problem.) Bucketsofg 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Hold on a second, since when does {{hangon}} mean that it has to go to AfD? Speedy isn't prod, hangon just means that the admin shouldn't speedy it while the user who placed the hangon tag on the page writes up his argument for why it should be kept. It doesn't mean that that argument will be enough to keep the article (or bring it to AfD). --
Rory09604:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)- It doesn't, it's just that in this case the article is very clearly not encyclopedic, and the editor placed the {{hangon}} tag without making any other comments or explanation, which in this case he would be advised to have done quite quickly, since the article is seems to be so clearly deletable Anyway, he has addressed the article now, see below.
- Comment from article creator: jason falls into the categorie of Amateurism and Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. SO please do delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viking2533 (talk • contribs). (This comment is from Talk:Jason cobarrubias, copied here by bikeable (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :) (N.B.: I think the last sentence has a typo and is intended to read "...So please do not delete." Herostratus)
- Delete. Sorry, Jason, but being the equipment manager of the Portland State football team doesn't cut it in terms of notability. --Russ Blau (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Osomec 16:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN Nigelthefish 19:54, 20 March 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. W.marsh 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kaufman UFOs
Unencyclopedic. The article makes it sound as though all of Kaufman is buzzing, but neither the county website nor the city paper mentions this at all. Joyous | Talk 23:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete.Quite unencyclopedic. Non notable even if true see Google [54] see Yahoo [55]--Dakota ~ ° 23:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- STRONG KEEP: Go to UFO Casebook's Homepage for more info. This area has been, and is still experiencing some really strange activity. SO FAR, no one has reported alien contact, animal mutilations, bigfoot encounters and the like, just what some people call "CE-1s" are being reported, and optical aids is often used to spot these things, and no landings have been reported. Martial Law 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- Comment:Check out the website for a local TV station in the website listings if you want "local" coverage. Martial Law 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- Secondary Comment:One of the pixes of one of these things is a videotape submitted to said TV station. I've seen a videotape online and it is a nighttime video, and it shows a UFO teleporting as it is moving. Martial Law 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- Comment:Link - The link to the local media covering this matter is Local TV Station's UFO coverage of the Kaufman UFOs. The online article even has some pixes of these things. Contact the indicated TV station about this matter. Martial Law 01:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- Secondary Comment:One of the pixes of one of these things is a videotape submitted to said TV station. I've seen a videotape online and it is a nighttime video, and it shows a UFO teleporting as it is moving. Martial Law 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- Comment:Check out the website for a local TV station in the website listings if you want "local" coverage. Martial Law 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- STRONG KEEP: Go to UFO Casebook's Homepage for more info. This area has been, and is still experiencing some really strange activity. SO FAR, no one has reported alien contact, animal mutilations, bigfoot encounters and the like, just what some people call "CE-1s" are being reported, and optical aids is often used to spot these things, and no landings have been reported. Martial Law 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- Keep But reword it. It seems a worthwhile story but should be cleaned up. For instance "As of 29 October 2005, there have been no reports of aliens landing, people getting abducted by aliens, animals getting killed and/or mutilated" can't you simply say something like; " As of 29 october 2005; there have been no further reported paranormal activity."? Maybe even rename the title: "Kaufman UFO Sighting", "Kaufman UFO Incident" something more explanitary. SkeezerPumba 02:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment:Seen the pix list of matter that people has sent to the UFO Casebook site ? The latest known pix was submitted on 3-6-06. Martial Law 04:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- Comment:How does one change the title ? Need a Admin for this matter. The article is about a continuing aerial encounter, thus there is no known reports of alien contact, no known reports of animals being killed, no other unusual activity of any sort going on at all. Martial Law 04:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- Comment:This is the pix shot on 3-6-06. Martial Law 05:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- Comment:The pix was submitted to UFO Casebook shortly after it was shot. Martial Law 05:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- Comment:How does one change the title ? Need a Admin for this matter. The article is about a continuing aerial encounter, thus there is no known reports of alien contact, no known reports of animals being killed, no other unusual activity of any sort going on at all. Martial Law 04:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- Comment:Seen the pix list of matter that people has sent to the UFO Casebook site ? The latest known pix was submitted on 3-6-06. Martial Law 04:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Strong delete, claptrap. Every 'reference' on this article is to a crank conspiracy theory page (such as ufocasebook.com), or to a blog that is trying to appear like an official website (such as hbccufo.org). This is most definitely not an article, it's original research, and made-up OR at that. Proto||type 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment:I did'nt know that the local paper and TV station are "crank conspiracy blogs" ? Martial Law 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :o
-
-
- Comment:Here is a look at the local TV Station's UFO Coverage. Martial Law 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- Comment:Find on this FOUR UFO videotapes that depict this matter. Also check out the two videotapes submitted to UFO Casebook. These are on this link The two referring to Kaufman are Kaufman,Co.,TX. 3-12-05 and 7-17-05. Martial Law 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
- Comment:If I offended anyone, I do humbly apologise. I am just presenting evidence concerning this matter. The pix mentioned is on the UFO Casebook link, and the local TV station link has four (4) video camera shaped icons in it. Click on these to see the UFO videos shot by some of the locals. Martial Law 02:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
- Comment:Find on this FOUR UFO videotapes that depict this matter. Also check out the two videotapes submitted to UFO Casebook. These are on this link The two referring to Kaufman are Kaufman,Co.,TX. 3-12-05 and 7-17-05. Martial Law 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
- Comment:Here is a look at the local TV Station's UFO Coverage. Martial Law 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- Comment:I did'nt know that the local paper and TV station are "crank conspiracy blogs" ? Martial Law 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :o
-
- Comment: You aren't offending anyone. Beyond those sources that you present both Google and Yahoo refer this article as their first or second source and we can't use Wikipedia as an external source.--Dakota ~ ° 03:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- KEEP It's valuable info for UFO watchers--Dr. Mahogany 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. As a Kaufman County resident, I have to say that this is not a topic of discussion. I've even checked my most reliable sources -- my teenage daughter, who hears everything being discussed at the high school -- and they confirm that nobody is "buzzing" about the "event". Plus, all the photos and descriptions I've seen appear to be perfectly normal atmospheric phenomena. It's water vapor condensation in a vortex behind an airplane -- not a teleporting alien. Might I suggest that the UFO community go to Wikicities and make their own Wiki -- with their own rules? --Robertb-dc 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment:Has there been a tie on any of these ? Martial Law 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
- Secondary Comment: 3 deletes, 3 keeps so far. Martial Law 21:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
- Comment:Has there been a tie on any of these ? Martial Law 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
-
- Delete. Nonencyclopedic. --Fang Aili 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Robertb-dc. Cursive 23:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Score is 5 deletes, 3 keeps. Martial Law 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment: Thought you might want to see this pix of one of the UFOs shot on 2-26-06.Martial Law 06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- Comment: This one shows some kind of structure, as if this is one of the Flying Triangles, and it has a anomaly near it on the 4th corner of the picture. Martial Law 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- Comment: Thought you might want to see this pix of one of the UFOs shot on 2-26-06.Martial Law 06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Delete: If the sightings are documented, then it's a real event and can have an article as much as any other alleged UFO sighting. But aside from the very first sentence, it's all speculation or assertions as to what is not happening (which is, of course, much more exotic than what actually is happening). Peter Grey 06:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment:This aerial only incident baffles me as well. Score is 6 deletes, 3 keeps. Martial Law 07:17, 21 March 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. W.marsh 03:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shaw-Allen-Shaw
Article on a band whihc may or may not have been locally notable, little if any evidence of that notability survives. Content is not formally a copyvio as it was posted by the original author, self-publicist User:Torshaw. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Content is verifiable. Other edits by the author look genuine, on related Minnesota topics. The only issue is notability. Understandably, notability of something in the past may not be well represented on the net, and we have lots of articles on people/music/other arts topics of current marginal notability that may be forgotten in a year and never have a book written about them. So I'm reluctant to delete, and vote weak keep. Slowmover 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. User:Torshaw = Terry R. Shaw = drummer with this band = vanity article (as are too many of this user's articles). --Spondoolicks 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - apparent history of vanity articles. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:12, 16 March 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. JIP | Talk 06:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MarkC
Non-notable user of a game maker; see WP:BIO and the other two RPG Maker designer nomintaions. Deckiller 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete as unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:02, 16 March 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. JIP | Talk 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DAZ3d
Delete. Lack of notability in relevant communities. Ashwinr 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like an ad for the company to me. --Ricaud 00:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Updated- amended to be more balanced
- Delete adv, nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:05, 18 March 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. Jinian 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advisory capital
This was speedily deleted as "discussion of a term coined on a blog. No claim to notability", an action that WP:DRV overturned and sent here for consideration. -Splashtalk 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Unless better evidence can be presented that this is a widespread concept, delete as a neologism. Rossami (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Rossami. In its own terms, the article asserts that it is a neologism. Xoloz 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep For the moment, at least, the topic is notable. It is the subject of discussion on many blogs (117 in technorati) with wide readership, some of which are cited. The notability guidelines don't (and shouldn't) preclude blogs. Many of the bloggers who have been using the term (including me) also write for print and/or write books. But blogs are now where our new ideas surface and are discussed. I did not coin this nor am I the principal blogger discussing the topic. If the topic should fade into obscurity, I'll be the first to propose deletion of the article. My guess is that it won't, however, because disaggregating the venture capital value proposition into its component parts including advisory capital is useful both in discussion and in the real world.--Tevslin 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep I've seen this phrase used extensively online. It makes sense to me, and if it disappears with time, you can delete it, my bet is that it won't disappear, but increase in frequency as the concept reaches more people--ninefish
- I have added a proposal to the blog wikiproject that an acceptable measure of current notability be the appearance of an article subject with a high technorati rank (or other measures of blog attention). Note that this does not make blogs an authority except on the subject of what's being discussed - and does avoid narrow or vanity articles.--Tevslin 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep I think that blogs althought personal at times can highlight importaint issues, and Wikipedia can benefit from such a thing as importaint issues, and also in the case of history being unfolded would you want a personal view point of it or just some facts that in most cases is likely to have facts removed for upholding of oppinion such as in largely politicaly motivated media--atomic1fire 09:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep I believe that Wikipedia can benefit by remaining current, and Blogs are likely to be an increasingly important source of current information. Would the letters to the editor section of the NYT be acceptable as a source and a Blog not? There are sufficient other safeguards as Tevslin and others have stated.--Eslonim 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: 34,000 google hits appears to meet WP:WEB. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:16, 24 March 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. The best argument presented about this being notable is coverage in a local newspaper, and the argument that this is a fairly weak claim to notability seems has been made by Rossami. I am not altogether convinced by the "Digimon-comparison" argument either since Digimon is a series, while this is presently a one-time event. With a greater than two-thirds majority for deletion, I am calling this a delete decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Llamacon
This was previously deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon, but WP:DRV overturned this for a mixture of concerns over lack of involvement. See here. -Splashtalk 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I originally brought it to DRV, for clarity. For one, at least three notable webcomic artists attended: R. K. Milholland from Something Positive, Jeph Jacques from Questionable Content, and Richard Stevens from Diesel Sweeties, among others. The convention was covered in the Berkshire Eagle, a newspaper with a circulation over 30k. As noted at DRV, we do not have a guideline regarding conventions of this nature, and while it qualifies under WP:BIO, which is good for individuals, it doesn't qualify under WP:CORP, which is good for companies. A convention is neither, but for a group to put on a convention featuring three notable people and recieving non-trivial news coverage, I feel it meets basic notability standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that WP:CORP does apply to conventions. My apologies for repeating what was said in the DRV discussion but I'll try to save others from having to dig around for it. Conventions are collective activities involving multiple people working together for mutual benefit. That is the classic "social compact" definition of a business. WP:CORP is not limited to only corporations but was explicitly written to cover non-profits and other organizational forms. The tests and criteria have been developed to help weigh these kinds of collective activities. Furthermore, most conventions are specifically run as a for-profit enterprise with the intent of providing goods and/or services to the participants and profits (either direct or through advertising value) to the organizers.
WP:BIO, on the other hand, is explicitly written to apply to individuals and does not apply in this case. (When comparing a convention to a company or to a human, I consider a convention to be more like a company and not at all like a human.) However, even if you did attempt to apply WP:BIO to a convention, a single mention in a newspaper would still fail to qualify as an inclusion criterion.
The most relevant criterion at WP:CORP appears to be the "multiple, non-trivial press coverage" criterion. A single mention in a local newspaper fails to qualify regardless of readership. Attendance by three notable people does not convince me that a first-year convention with only 270 attendees automatically inherits notability. Many local industry gatherings have far higher attendance without being appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
Unless other evidence can be presented of significant coverage by multiple independent, non-trivial and reliable sources, I must recommend deletion but without prejudice against recreation several years from now if/when the convention has achieved the true and sustained notability that would make it appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) - I see both arguments but agree mostly with Rossami. On the other hand, I would rather see an article on a tiny fan-run con than separate articles on each different evolutionary stage of each different Digimon character. My mind says delete but my heart says keep. If the Digimon stay, Llamacon stays. Keep, Thatcher131 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Current consensus at the Digimon project is to merge the evolutionary stages, as soon as they can agree on a structure for doing so. (They want to merge, but haven't decided how.) Just saying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree wholeheartedly with Rossami. Almost to the point of not having anything to add to it. It seems that badlydrawnjeff's only two arguments are the presence of three people with Wikipedia pages and coverage by one (1) local newspaper (I even did a Google News and LexisNexis search for it and didn't find anything other than the Eagle article). Neither of these points have any evidence in the form of examples from other articles, and they have weak interpretation-based evidence in Wikipedia policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaulIsNotDead (talk • contribs).
- To be fair, I don't care if they have WP pages or not, I'm simply more concerned with notable groups, people, and events being represented on Wikipedia. Any disagreements w/Rossami and I boil down to how best to judge the notability here. Notable people + press coverage is enough for some, not for others. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. And to prove that three "notable" people plus coverage in one local newspaper means notability, I'd like some proof. Ideally, I'd like some proof in other WP pages. Policies would work too, but all you have given is interpretation of policies, which Rossami has disproved. -PaulIsNotDead 14:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rossami hasn't "disproved" anything, (s?)he's merely given his opinion that WP:CORP is the better guideline in place of a situation lacking one, and I've given my opinion in disagreement. Events where notable people are guests and thusly recieve press coverage pass muster for me, they don't have to pass muster for you. Reasonable people can disagree, especially on issues such as this that are not clear cut. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. And to prove that three "notable" people plus coverage in one local newspaper means notability, I'd like some proof. Ideally, I'd like some proof in other WP pages. Policies would work too, but all you have given is interpretation of policies, which Rossami has disproved. -PaulIsNotDead 14:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- To be fair, I don't care if they have WP pages or not, I'm simply more concerned with notable groups, people, and events being represented on Wikipedia. Any disagreements w/Rossami and I boil down to how best to judge the notability here. Notable people + press coverage is enough for some, not for others. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thatcher: two wrongs don't make a right! I say delete because there's really nothing to say about this single convention. After a second one, Llamacon would be about a series of conventions, and then I think it would be fine. I disagree with Rossami, though: WP:CORP may be more applicable than WP:BIO, but neither is right. I think WP:V is the ultimate guide here... and there just isn't much to say about Llamacon. Mangojuice 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Re-delete per original AFD vote. If and when it becomes a regular occurrence, like GenCon or Origins (although it need not be as big), then recreation is in order. Stifle 16:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per previous AfD. There is no way of telling whether this is a genuinely significant convention or a flash in the pan untiol we've seen how it fares in future years. There is no deadline to meet here. Just zis Guy you know? 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG and Rossami. --kingboyk 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't agree that either WP:BIO or WP:CORP are properly applicable. I do agree that encyclopedic notability of this particular topic is a judgment call. I don't see that the presence of the article is clearly violating policy, causing any trouble, setting a bad precedent, serving as an obnoxious spamvertisement, or being confusing. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Ikkyu2 insofar as I am uncomfortable applying either guideline in this case: these are "guidelines" for a reason, with an expectation that certain articles will fall in liminal areas, as this example does. Without reference to strict set criteria, my own judgment demands first evidence of durability. In very few instances would a first-year gathering meet encyclopedic standards; to be notable, it must prove itself able to endure in most cases. While there are exceptions (eg. Woodstock), this case doesn't seem to me to merit such status. Hence, wait till next year's event, at least. Xoloz 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time seeing how a first year 270 person convention is notable enough. Notability may be transitive, I guess, but it goes down by some factor (80%? only one fifth the notability comes over... pick your own numbers and work it for yourself...) every time you transition, so 3 barely notable artists only gets you 60% (3*20% if only 1/5 came over) of the notability you need, if you see what I'm saying... Delete with regret. (the much bigger con 2BeContinued does not, near as I can tell, have an article, for example and it is a multiyear con with many much more notable guests) Maybe next year for this one? ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with no regret :) per Ikkyu2. Turnstep 19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above arguments. Would not object if it were recreated sometime in the future with a little more history marching along behind it. --Syrthiss 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; not seeing notability. joturner 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deeply pained as I am to say so, delete. Yes, two of my three favorite webcomics are represented here, lacking only Stoopid pigeon to make the trifecta, but per all the above this isn't notable yet. Dammit. - brenneman{L} 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Badlydrawnjeff and to ease the pain of the user above and the contributor(s) to this article. -- JJay 12:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Being attended by a couple of notable people isn't enough to make a convention notable. Every weekend there are a dozen sports-card shows across the country attended by multiple notable athletes, and nobody would reasonably suggest we have a page for each of these. I personally think the "hundred-year test" is too restrictive, but unless something groundbreaking occurred at this con (the notable people doing something notable), I don't think it passes a ten year test. --djrobgordon 17:44, 21 March 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 — xaosflux Talk 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cgtantra
Hi - this is promo article. Rama's Arrow 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:02, 16 March 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. Flowerparty■ 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kirven's
Speedied, undeleted by WP:DRV, on a request that indicated merging, but at least two people wanted it listed here, so here it is. -Splashtalk 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or keep, real department store and local institution. [56]. Kappa 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, Kappa, but your cited article barely mentions the store. Xoloz 01:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article confirms was a local institution, you're saying I can't read about because it doesn't google very well? Kappa
-
-
- Kappa, sorry to be picky, but: "V.V. Vick, who died of heart problems Saturday at age 93, left behind a business he started on a shoestring in 1929. His first storefront was on 12th Street, followed by a move a few years later to Broadway, where he would become something of a local institution, along with Schomburg's Jewelers and the Kirven's department store."
- The article actually says this man Vick was a local institution. It mentions Kirven's in an "along with" clause, but that is unclear, and leaves me no clue as to whether Vick owned Kirven's or was just next to it. No need to get snappy; everybody misreads from time to time. Xoloz 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- sigh* either it says "he + the other two things collectively made up a local instition", or "he became a local institution, like the other two things", which seems the most likely interpretation. Kappa 02:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- While your reading is logical, I don't agree. Since the store is claimed to have been founded in 1979, I need more than an ambiguous single "along with" clause to confer "institutional" status. It is possible that the unclear reporter meant something more like an off-the-cuff reference: "Vick's jewelry store was an institution (remember Vicks?... it was next to Kirven's and that other place.)" Not having much faith in a reporter who uses imprecise language, I am unconvinced. Xoloz 02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete, it's a single shop with one fleeting reference in a local paper. Not notable. Wikipedia is not yell.com Proto||type 09:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Proto. Petros471 11:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this would just be a permastub unless someone can find more verifiable info on this store. Mangojuice 15:39, 20 March 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 — xaosflux Talk 04:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alkanian Sector
Delete as hoax or fan fiction. I am also including Pwogwopa in this listing, as it was created at the same time and claims to be part of this sector. Note that both Google and Wookieepedia searches turned up no results for either. BryanG 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Adding Detachment League of Alkania to this list as well. BryanG 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. I'd say it's categorically impossible that even the most obscure of official Star Wars references would be unknown to the internet. Postdlf 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge: with Star Wars galaxy or/and List of Star Wars systemsTutmosis 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently its fan fiction due to no mention of this anywhere, including Wookiepedia. Tutmosis 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all three. I am unable to find any info on any of them from any source. -- wacko2 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all three as fanfic. Sandstein 10:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all three per nom. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not a single canonical source that I know of can back up any of this. Certainly not anything from the Clone Wars era. --BinaryTed 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As the creator of this page, I made a mistake. My bad. Please remove it (and the others). It won't happen again. Sarcastic Pillow 23:27, 18 March 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 based on the opinions of those few who voted here who were established Wikipedians. I'm closing this early because it has turned into a cesspool. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Innatheism
- REDIRECT Template:Not a ballot
In contradiction with the above notice: Voting - Wikipedia uses a one person, one vote principle for all votes and similar discussions from the following page - WP:SOCK
- I don't see what the contradiction is - one person has one vote, but the point is that the final decision is not based on numbers of votes. Mdwh 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable vanity religion. This "new faith" gets 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors.[57] Postdlf 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This should not be deleted...if you need to verify the existence of the religion, get in contact with the british government at directgov.helpdesk@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk -- and since when did google become the standard of verification? Dig a little harder, the religion has a small internet following, and attempts have been made to register it with the government.—This unsigned comment is by Innatheism (talk • contribs) .
- Since you asked, here is a commonly accepted take on notability. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn, unverified. Bucketsofg 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Oh please. Some guy decides it would be cool to found a 'religion' and this is supposed to be notable? --Ricaud 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Remember when the British government listed Jedi Knight as a religion a few years back? Fan1967 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that was media hype. The government didn't register jedi as a religion, and they repeatedly said they would not before the census went out. It was a rumour that started in Australia, a completely different country. Don't throw around faulty anecdotes as evidence
On top of this, I chose to start the wikipedia entry BECAUSE I could find so little about it on the internet. If this doesn't fit with your policy, I apologise, but I was under the impression that seeing as how I'm not in any way affiliated with the religion, and therefore not publicising, say, a business or venture of my own, this would be ok.
I'm merely trying to inform the world of a viewset that does not exist anywhere else. I actually gained information about the religion myself through a leaflet that came through my front door. Usually I discard religious material, being a strong atheist, but this caught my eye (due to the use of the word atheist in the title).
I wouldn't say it converted me, but I couldn't fit anything about it on the net, so decided to put a small stub here, allowing others the opportunity to expand on it. Does that run contrary to your policy of freely sharing information?
If you wait a while (it's 1:35 in the morning in England, I need to go to sleep for now), I can scan in the leaflet I was given -- would that provide verification that this is genuine? —This unsigned comment is by 88.109.78.41 (talk • contribs) .
- No, coverage in reliable media outlets or academic sources would. Wikipedia is not for information not already covered elsewhere. Postdlf 02:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete the article has no problems other than the fact that it's unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete microreligion. Gazpacho 09:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
So basically, you're telling me that even though you COULD very easily phone the government, who would verify the existence of this religion for you, you won't, because it hasn't yet recieved any notable media coverage or google hits? I appreciate that it may not be your place to check the validity that extensively, but then why are you bothering at all? If it's not immediately at your fingertips, you're not interested? I'm placing it at your fingertips. You could verify it with one email -- to a Mr Stephen Wilkins, I've already given you the email address.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.184.204 (talk • contribs).
-
- Comment What purpose would that serve? We could contact the guy so he could tell us you tried to register a religion but (according to this article) the UK doesn't register religions. Seems kind of pointless. Fan1967 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete I grudgingly agree with this guy. Is wikipedia really just piggy-backing on google? Tenth_User 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
On top of all this, has no one noticed that Innatheism has been on the list of newly founded religions in wikipedia since the summer? I noticed it a while back, and have been waiting for someone to write an article explaining to me exactly what it is ToMySurprise_81 13:37, 16 March 2006
Also, I'd point out that the pages of every user who has suggested the deletion of this article are a bigger waste of wikipedia's time and virtual space - they are all vanity pages, and get 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors ToMySurprise_81 13:41, 16 March 2006
Note to Fan-1967 - I was under the impression that I had to validify that the religion existed. According to the leaflet I was handed out, (which I've offered to scan in and post here, I did not contact the government myself and have no personal connection to this church), the church contacted the government last year. Presumably you agree with me that something must exist in order to contact the government. The fact that they hold no register is neither here nor there, I'm working on the assumption that their correspondance will have been recorded. Or at least remembered.
I only wrote this article, as I have already stated, because I received the leaflet and could find no great information on it on the net. I did find this - [[58]] - which I think you'll agree is quite uninformative. Searching in Wikipedia, results came up with several pages - one of which was a list of religions. Since there was no page on it, I typed up the article we're currently discussing from information in the pamphlet (which I'm still happy to provide for you).
As I've REPEATEDLY said, I have no personal connection to this religion. I'm an atheist. I merely found information on it, and tried to put it on the internet when I found there was no information here already (though the religion WAS already mentioned on wikipedia).
Personally, I think the attitude of wikipedians is ridiculous. I can provide you with a copy of hard media which represents this church, which was delivered through my door. But you won't accept it because google doesn't turn anything up? Two of your policies contradict each other - you'll take information that has a media representation, but only if that representation is already in digital media. The real world exists just as much as the internet does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.27.34 (talk • contribs).
- Regarding "Note to Fan-1967 - I was under the impression that I had to validify that the religion existed." You were mistaken. Existence is only the first step. You need to validate that the religion is notable. Have people heard of it? Does it have any significant number of followers? Can any of that information be verified? Fan1967 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a blatent lie. According to wikipedia's page on notability - "Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied...There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable)...The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included..."Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance)...The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable." -- The fact that you don't consider this to be of note (or, more probably, disagree with the belief system it outlines), according to wikipedia guidelines, is neither here nor there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.37.190 (talk • contribs).
I also find this whole debate highly hypocritical, since on this page - [[59]] - you list Wikipedeism as a religion. Misinformation or vanity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hellmonkey42 (talk • contribs).
- Answer Misinformation. Somebody obviously added it as a prank or joke. Fan1967 16:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, Hellmonkey42. Slowmover 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Creating an article about a subject on which you yourself have minimal reliable information is ill-advised. As far as you (and we) know, this could be one guy handing out leaflets. Gazpacho 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Strictly on the basis of NN. Slowmover 19:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. —LrdChaos 04:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP After being approached the other day by some followers of this faith, I wanted to find out more, this is the only information I could find on the internet about Innatheism, this article contains what they were saying. - Jumbeaux_lafeet. 11:18, 18 March 2006
- User's first edit.[60]
- KEEP i met some followers of innatheism. there points seemed very just. this page clearly expresses what the were saying. the ammount of google hits does not increase or decrease how relevant it is. chegrem@hotmail.com 20:09pm, 17th march 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.157.77 (talk • contribs).
- KEEP there are active innatheists - i have met some campaining in the street. you cannot deny the public knowledge just because it is little known. stringy74@msn.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.59.216 (talk • contribs).
- ~~KEEP~~ Its true i have seen a group of innatheists campaining in London and i don't belive that as it is little known it should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.238.57 (talk • contribs).
- Delete. Not notable, and also not verified. Can we have something more than "some guy gave me a leaflet"? Mdwh 17:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
As already discussed, it is NOT wikipedia's policy to delete articles based on notability. It states this on the notability page itself, and I have quoted it above. To keep parroting "non notable, non notable, non notable" like a broken record is pedantic and irrelevent. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Several users have now described encounters with Innatheists in the real world (myself included), and I can only presume these users are from different places. I, myself, encountered the people handing out leaflets in Milton Keynes, and a user above has encountered them in London. Printed media can also be provided - maybe not information published in a newspaper or a magazine, but that would only prove that the religion was attracting the attention of the media at large - and that's not the question being debated. Nor is it necessary - by wikipedia's policies, peer review or publishment is only necessary for academic claims. I quote: For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. - and even then, this is only a preference, not a necessity.
I hate to repeat myself, but to requote: "Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied...The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included..."Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one If you're going to object to this article, could you at least do it on grounds based in wikipedia's policies, rather than the fact that you personally think it's not worthy of comment?
In Summary: There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in the rules for submitting articles that means this particular one should be deleted.
1 - It's been commented that it's not notable - that's your opinion, and not grounds for deletion, by wikipedia's rules.
2 - It's been said that this is unverified - at this moment in time, maybe so, but only because I'm unsure what verification you require. The wikipedia page on verification demands only a fulfillment of the burden of evidence -- the media which contained this information can be provided, which would make wikipedia a secondary source, fulfilling this.
3 - There MAY be grounds for deletion, on a case of dubious reliability. However, according to the verification page, if a source is dubious it should simply be quoted. I can do more than that, I can scan in and upload the document itself.
4 - as for the ignorant question made above: Can we have something more than "some guy gave me a leaflet"? - no, you don't need any more than that. Again, I quote from the verification page -- Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them.
- Strong delete as non-notable neoreligion and ignore this ridiculous sockpuppetry. --Cyde Weys 19:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Cyde. Keep your sockpuppets off here....perhaps enough of them can start their own religion. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article clearly does not come under the terms of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is the only applicable policy in this case, and, since various people have confirmed its existance, it seems, prima facie, to be verifiable (though some more concrete evidence would be nice). Cyde: you are accusing, without evidence, the page's author of using sockpuppetry to influence voting, which is specifically prohibited under WP:SOCK; surely this is a failure to assume good faith. --David.Mestel 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. It seems to me that you are confusing things. Yes, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. How is any item of information judged worthy of being part of the collection? By notability, not verifiability. Now, accepting this as verified on the basis of 'various people having confirmed its existence' is setting the bar absurdly low imo. But even if we were to allow that, there is the question of notability. And there is no reason at all to suppose that this is notable. Bucketsofg 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP A guy approached me in the centre of Manchester on behalf of these 'Innatheists' the other day and tried to tell me a bit more about their views. There doesn't seem to be much else about them on the internet but isn't part of Wikipedia's purpose to give us somewhere to look up these obscure things?
Having just following the link (thanks DM) and found out what you mean by "sockpuppet" -- check the IP addresses. How could I make a comment, log off to change IP's, make another comment in another name, log back on WITH THE SAME IP ADDRESS and make more comments? I couldn't. You're accusing me of something that's impossible. Though I'll ignore this insult, as it says on the sockpuppet page - things will only get uglier.
- 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.