Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Centralized discussion |
 |
| Discussions |
|---|
| Conclusions |
[edit] March 25
- 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, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Apocalypse Rising
non-notable band ➥the Epopt 00:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan
00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete, non-notable band. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Royboycrashfan. Batmanand | Talk 00:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)On second thoughts, policy says keep per Monicasdude. Batmanand | Talk 07:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)- Weak Delete - Musicians have some weak claim to notability, giving the band some notability per WP:MUSIC. I just don't think that claim is strong enough. --Hyperbole 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. According to WP:MUSIC, a band is notable if it "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." In this case, there are two members (Alex Marquez, Dennis Munoz) who have previously been members of notable bands (in Marquez' case, 3 notable bands). I expect the music this band will make will be unlistenable crap, but it's not appropriate to indulge my (or anyone else's) taste to exclude the band when it clearly meets the stated criteria for inclusion. Monicasdude 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monicasdude. dbtfztalk 02:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per monicasdude, Hyperbole. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't Rolling Stone. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 04:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: per Monicasdude. BTW, what is meant by "This isn't Rolling Stone"? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: but the article needs fixing Swilk 04:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Sometimes WP:MUSIC engenders reactionary deletionist feelings in me but it is the consensus. JoshuaZ 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monica. Arbusto 06:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well, I've got one of their CD's. Notable band members = notable band. ⇒ SWATJester
Ready Aim Fire! 07:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC) - Keep, notable band and per Monicasdude. --Terence Ong 09:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Certain band members may be deemed notable by various sources, but according to the article, they have yet to release even a demo. Gmrx 14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monicasdude. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable band. *drew 16:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monicasdude. We're not talking grammy here, but it passes borderline member notability. --Jay(Reply) 21:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monicasdude, who's arguements have not been countered. --Rob 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Monicasdude. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into the articles on Marquez and Munoz, or into Malevolent Creation. This band itself is not yet notable, but some of its members are. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:14, 26 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 01:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CU Backslash
DeletePRODed by User:Ifnord as non-notable podcast on 3/23. PROD removed by User:BinaryCleric (page creator) without comment. I slapped on a mergeto tag to send it to Clarion University, as I don't think it is independently notable. Ifnord merged & redirected it. BinaryCleric unmerged it and restored it, saying "Leave my page alone."I truthfully don't know whether it is best to delete or merge, butit SHOULDN'T be a stand-alone article and BinaryCleric has problems with WP:OWN Karnesky 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)- Speedy Delete, per original page author's delete vote. --Karnesky 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- See, also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Backslash_Podcasting_Group--Karnesky 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn podcast. What assertion of notability - above "it features on iTunes" (which, I believe, anyone can request; ie does not prove notability) is there? If none, the policy says delete. Batmanand | Talk 00:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising. Author's description of article as "my page" pretty much proves that. --Hyperbole 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn podcast. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable podcast. Might change my vote if it gets changed from being "distributed on all major podcast distribution mediums" to being distributed on all major radio stations. :P — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I know the policy for ownership on Wikipedia, I just feel like all of you are attacking my work. People (fans of our podcast) will bring it back if it is deleted. --BinaryCleric
- Delete; no one's attacking anything, it's just that the subject isn't notable or encyclopedic. --Kinu t/c 02:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete pod casts should be speedied in the same way as blogs, if nothings done to assert notability, IMHO ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn podcast. We should include podcasts on CSD or have a policy/ guideline on them. --Terence Ong 09:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete nowhere near notable. --Soumyasch 09:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity. Ifnord 13:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, if you feel it's a violation of the rules then fine. I wasn't aware that notability was enforced this much, I was simply trying to post an artical about my podcast which has brough about change (for the better) to Clarion University. If it violates these rules then I will wait until we have met one of the conditions for notability and then repost, if that is okay. BinaryCleric
- Delete per all above. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn podcast. *drew 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Blogs/podcasts generally need national media coverage for my vote. Deizio 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn podcast + above. --Jay(Reply) 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as redirect to nonexistent article. --BinaryTed 15:14, 29 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 00:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Avian flu- should we worry?
Delete. Whilst containing probably vaguely true information in places, it finishes with a rant and, as the title implies, is personal opinion throughout. This isn't really suitable as a redirect anywhere since the title is highly unlikely to be searched for and the title contains a fairly leading question anyway. (It appears not to be copyio.) -Splashtalk 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above.--Adam
(talk) 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not is a blog. Batmanand | Talk 01:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, but you should worry about editors who say Delete as OR --Mmx1 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. WP:NOT a how-to guide to avoid getting bird flu either. --Kinu t/c 02:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete personaly opinion M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete belongs in a blog, not here Swilk 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per above --Phenz 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom and RoyBoy (although I'm starting to think that perhaps I oughtn't to be eating those dead crows that show up on my front lawn from time to time). Joe 06:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete not a blog. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, unencyclopedic, blog, original research. --Terence Ong 09:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NPOV violation. Personal essay. (aeropagitica) 12:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mikker ... 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Original research, vanity. *drew 16:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, OR, this is an essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 16:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and let's not worry about it any more Deizio 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete essay. Oliver Keenan 19:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a soapbox. But some matter may be included in Avian flu. ImpuMozhi 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely not an article. This isn't the place for it. --Jay(Reply) 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Totally POV. Sorry, belongs on OpEd page somewhere elseBridesmill 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Detele High POV, and very little substance. This is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. Akira 03:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Try a free web host instead. ProhibitOnions 23:12, 26 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 00:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AUTUT
Delete - non-notable subforum; does not meet WP:WEB discospinster 01:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, and WP:SPAM. Royboycrashfan 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Batmanand | Talk 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn website, spam. --Terence Ong 09:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable website. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, aren't all subforums non-notable? JIP | Talk 16:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. --Jay(Reply) 22:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Cool3 03:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above, though I sense I'm not casting the deciding vote here... ProhibitOnions 23:13, 26 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 01:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Screaming Pattersons (band)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Band does not meet notability requirements in WP:MUSIC. Prod tag was contested. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this band meets the Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability requirement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W9843 (talk • contribs).
- Keep. Vanity perhaps, but it seems that this band has made considerable contribution to the community and that a good deal of people (other than the community) would be able to recognize them on a search.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by W9843 (talk • contribs).
I agree with the above commentator. I live in New York, and I have heard of this band before. They are well worthy of a wikipeida page.—This unsigned comment was added by User3344 (talk • contribs) .
This may be true but this may be their attempt to write a first article and may publish several others after this. But as we continue to debate its deletion, their confidence to write an article is slowly decreasing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.151.39.31 (talk • contribs).
- Keep. They have "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city". —This unsigned comment was added by 146.151.39.31 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as not important enough to include in an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - poorly written article about non-notable music group. dbtfztalk 04:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. To those voting keep, please read WP:MUSIC and if possible, explain to us how it meets the requirements there. JoshuaZ 05:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Clear delete per nom. Joe 06:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC,WP:VAIN.--Dakota ~ ° 08:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, as per nomination. --Soumyasch 08:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity band. --Terence Ong 09:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, VanityBandCruft. Deizio 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Jay(Reply) 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:13, 26 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 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Annarborpublicschools.org
Notability not shown; fails WP:WEB; Alexa rank > 1.2 million Doctor Whom 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This article itself says the website has been taken down. --Lockley 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no claim of notability whatsoever. Fetofs Hello! 02:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; fails WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 03:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above; also, few google hits Where (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Macrowiz 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Icarus 09:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 10:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable website. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not troubling WP:WEB. Deizio 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:13, 26 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 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Swire Marketing
Doesn't satisfy WP:CORP. No evidence of notability in the article. "Swire Marketing" gets only 29 unique Google hits. dbtfztalk 02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention that prod tag was removed by creator and sole editor of the article, User:Zswire. dbtfztalk 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, spamvertisement. Catamorphism 03:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:VSCA. --Kinu t/c 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 03:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, spamad, nn corp. --Terence Ong 10:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of notability, and not related to the Swire Group of London and Hong Kong. ProhibitOnions 13:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, CorpCruft Deizio 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:13, 26 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 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miller's goat
Tagged for speedy as nonsense, but is fully intelligible so presumably there are concerns that it may be a hoax. Intelligible hoaxes are AfD work. -Splashtalk 03:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no relevant Google hits, smells like a hoax to me. Catamorphism 03:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. It is almost 5 meters tall or 16 feet tall. Horns 6 feet. Hoax. No Googles [1]--Dakota ~ ° 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. And that's not a very good horn-to-height ratio, I think. --Kinu t/c 03:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above Where (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax --Icarus 09:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 10:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete {{hoax}} article. Tagged thusly. (aeropagitica) 12:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, same guy tried to sell me a bridge. Deizio 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. ProhibitOnions 23:14, 26 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. It doesn't seem that any of the deleters are persauded and "why the heck not" doesn't cut much ice with me as an argument. I'd also observe that a link to an ebay auction and a members.tripod.com site are not useful as sources for anything. -Splashtalk 16:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Windseye
Advertisement for a stained glass company, company does not meet WP:CORP OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Windseye kaleidoscopes are no longer being made. These kaleidoscopes have been featured in Cozy Baker's book, "Through the Kaleidoscope" published in 1985 and featured at many arts and craft shows throughout Florida during the 1970s and 1980s. The kaleidoscopes developed pushed the envelope of creative design in kaleidocopes and were the forerunners of many existing kaleidoscope designs available today. Doug JOhnson —This unsigned comment was added by Windseye (talk • contribs) .
- Delete: being featured at some shows in Florida does not create notability. Delete per nom. --Hetar 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Approxiamtely 40,000 of Windseye kaleidoscopes were created and made available in over 500 galleries and gift shops around the world in the 20 years of production. First and 2nd place prizes were won at the Coconut Grove Festival, FL, in 1982 and 1983. The kaleidoscopes were featured in many newspaper accounts during the 1970s and 1980s. Notability is a subjective word; the kaleidoscopes did exist historically, were unique and innovative, and more significant than arbitrary subjective judgments. Windseye 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Doug Johnson
- If "First and 2nd place prizes were won at the Coconut Grove Festival, FL" and they "were featured in many newspaper accounts during the 1970s and 1980s." where are the sources for this? --Hetar 05:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Found this one for sale. The few Google hits I've seen suggest that they are known among kaleioscope enthusiasts; I'm not sure how much that really adds to notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete on the grounds that the original author will rewrite it to be a non-advertisement (assuming he can find some notablity. If not, then definately delete. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, could something in it, but notability not proved despite efforts here. Deizio 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's some notability: http://members.tripod.com/kaleidoscopemuseum/djohnson.html And check out the original Cozy Baker book on K'scopes... "Through the Kaleidoscope" Note that acknowledgement on this page regarding the marble kaleidoscope design--- the use of marbles was a first in 1979. All other scopes using marbles were based on this design. Over the years the design evolved to accomodate marbles of different size (7/8" to 1 1/2"). (I'll find more references and when I am resident at home with a scanner I'll scan in newspaper and magazzine articles.) Windseye 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Doug Johnson
Interesting how many web citations there are for "Doug Johnson" even though the scopes were orignally labeled as Windseye creations, e.g.: http://www.scherergallery.com/guide/featured.imagepage.ihtml?f=35.1978 Even someone on Ebay is getting into the act! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6261597026 http://cgi.ebay.com/Satellite-445-kaleidoscope-Doug-Johnson-1986-MINT_W0QQitemZ6236768431QQcategoryZ104035QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem Windseye 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Doug Johnson
All binocular style kaleidoscopes created within the last 30 years or so stem from the models created starting in 1983 which include the BINOC with two wheels, the SUPERBINOC made with dichroic mirror on the sides and in the wheels, the ROLABINOC suing an oil filled object case, and a MARBINOC feturing a large handmade marble.
Use of dichroic mirror as integral to the mirror system as well as in the object cases of the scopes, be they wheels, kevels, oil filled tubes, satellites, gyrosats or whatever, originated with Windseye in 1978-- all use of dichroic mirror in the last 28 years was inspirewd by the creations of Windseye. Windseye 19:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Doug Johnson
-
- Comment Hi Windseye, links to sources verifying notability should be attached to the article, in accordance with the guides at WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:EL. Then all you need to do is notify (rather than replicate the links) on this page that the article has been updated, editors will be happy to check over the page anew. Nice one Deizio 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Apparently not an advertisement, notable to those who care about kaleidoscopes (!?, but...). Kalkin 20:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
A friend just passed this link about collecting scopes along.... http://www.collectingchannel.com/cdsdetart.asp?CID=1&PID=421 Windseye 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Doug Johnson
Keep Appears to be somewhat notable within the world of collectable kaleidoscopes, narrow as that world may be. --Krich (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Why the heck not" keep per above. Sandstein 08:27, 1 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 no consensus. -- King of Hearts talk 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peter V. Tretter
I created this article, but in hindsight (which is often 20/20) it isn't particularly notable or important. Delete Ardenn 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, real candidate in an election. Where (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Being a candidate in an election doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jamie. JoshuaZ 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jamie. --Khoikhoi 06:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Where. Arbusto 06:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The relevant criterion under WP:BIO are "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" or "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage." He satisfies neither. JoshuaZ 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jamie (and kudos to Ardenn). Joe 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Vote Pending: If was a candidate for a notable state or federal, or major local position, I'd say keep. If not I'd say delete ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the position is absolutely notable: Member of Provincial Parliament is the only elected provincial office in Ontario, and from their number come the Premier, Cabinet, Speaker, opposition leaders, etc. The precedent is absolutely clear that candidates for such offices can be included, at the very least in merged lists for X party candidates in 20YY. The trouble is this is a by-election, or special election: is it worth ganging him together with his party's two other candidates in by-elections elsewhere in Ontario (far away) on the same day? Keep; merge/redirect into such an article if the consensus really thinks that's the best idea. Samaritan 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Today is the 25th of March 2006. The by election in which he is running is to be held on 30th of March 2006. If you have to be an elected MP or whatever the local term may be to be notable, we cant possibly tell right now whether he's notable or not. For all we know, if we delete this now, we may very well have to recreate it in five days time. Shouldnt the AfD wait/have waited until then? Jcuk 09:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is it possible to keep this AfD open for an extra few days? JoshuaZ 16:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jamie. --Terence Ong 11:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, campaign is notable current event; if we only give the officeholder an article we might have an NPOV issue. ProhibitOnions 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Candidacy in most elections, certainly including provincial by-elections, does not in itself carry any notability, as it is an opportunity open to anyone in a democracy and there are plenty of "vanity" and single-issue candidates out there. Other sources of this candidates importance must be provided per WP:BIO. Articles about nn topics cannot be justified simply to "balance things up", individual topics must be individually notable. Deizio 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Where. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Now or after the election when he gets stomped. Sorry to be guilty of crystal-ballism, but how notable is he in a riding where a Green Party candidate has never finished higher than fourth place? [2] - Fan1967 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn minor party candidate. Pick Fan1967's jaw up off the floor and recreate if he gets elected. Brief mention in the winning candidates article will be fine otherwise. Deizio 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks. I'm willing to take that risk. A few minutes browsing the Ottawa press shows that his candidacy is barely being noticed there. Generally, candidates are not notable until they win, or lose in a notable fashion. Rarely, high-profile candidates in a high-profile election are notable, but this case involves neither. Fan1967 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While I did nominate this on afd, I have to disagree with you in this respect. He was on the front cover of the city section of Friday's Ottawa Citizen [3] along with being mentioned in the Nepean Weekender, Nepean this Week, and Barrhaven Independent.[4] Ardenn 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep you know who Sam Hundal is? I thought so. Someone out there may want information on this candidate; I don't see why they shouldn't it from here. --Jay(Reply) 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep The keep part per Where, the weak part because the article's creator doesn't find it notable. Nonetheless, I think the topic certainly meets WP:BIO. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. At least he's done something, unlike Lukás of Bulgaria listed below, a kid who not only hasn't done anythig noteworthy but isn't even known by the name under which his Wikipedia article appears. Gene Nygaard 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until the end of the election, then, if he wins or becomes a notable loser, keep permanently. --Midnighttonight 07:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, the normal AfD period should do that. If he wins, someone can note it here and in the article. Fan1967 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The election is on Thursday. Ardenn 16:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article can always be recreated if he wins. Fan1967 16:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that the existing practice for byelections is to discuss them in the article on the preceding general election rather than separate articles, there would also be the option of merging this into the 2003 Green candidates list. Maybe not the best option, but I offer it for discussion. At any rate, I'd favour merging this somewhere if possible, but keep if there isn't a viable merge option. The consensus has tended to favour permitting some kind of coverage of electoral candidates. Bearcat 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If you delete this article, you'd better go through all the other campaign articles and delete the pages for "marginal" candidates that lost - like Natural Law party, which is way more marginal than this one. BTW, the national Green party fielded candidates in every riding across Canada - to me that makes the Green Party influential and notable. Furthermore, the Green Party aims to have serious political effects and is succeeding - the other parties are picking up planks out of the Green Party platform - unlike the situation with those other marginal parties.
- Comment Fielding candidates in open democracies like the US and Canada is so easy that I hesitate to label someone as notable just because they were on the ballot. There are two candidates in this race who are even more obscure than Tretter (for a total of six on the ballot), though one of them seems to hold some sort of record for number of elections lost, which might be a claim to fame. In the US, the Libertarians routinely field candidates in most congressional districts. I wouldn't describe them as notable. Fan1967 19:55, 27 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. Not a reference has been provided, and so none of the concerns of the deleters are dealt with. Indeed, if urbandictionary is the best external link that can be found, then we should be questioning very seriously if this is suitable for an encyclopedia. -Splashtalk 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lumpkin (sexual activity)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a list of slang terms. DanielCD 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I rebuttal... articles such as Cleveland steamer, which is also a sexual act and is also a slang term, is allowed to stay on Wikipedia. I can understand merging it with another article... but not outright deleting it. Bubby the Tour G 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well, vote keep. If you can expand the article, it has a better change of surviving. This is just a discussion; it doesn't mean it's certain to be deleted. --DanielCD 04:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete can MadCow257 04:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge it with a master list of sexual slang terms. However, there's no reason to include a link to a video of someone's grandmother being ridiculed over her unfamiliarity with the word. 24.208.72.177 04:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is a sub-stub. Nothing found on first pages of goggle serach FloNight talk 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There is a definition of it on http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lumpkin... the first definition there, posted by user Marklar on Aug 18, 2004 Bubby the Tour G 05:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- User submitted terms. WP is not a collection of everything that anybody said. FloNight talk 05:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism per lack of useful google hits. JoshuaZ 05:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable neologism, regardless of whether it makes me sick or not. --Elkman - (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Bubby. Arbusto 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef, rarely used neologism, Urban Dictionary is not a valid source for anything. Catamorphism 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; neologism with unverifiable usage. Urban Dictionary is not a credible source. Also, isn't the accepted term for this "blumpkin," anyway? --Kinu t/c 07:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect that and the Cleveland thing to Coprophilia. yuck --Midnighttonight 08:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete CSD G4 if possible as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blumpkin. Otherwise delete per nom as WP:WINAD. Esquizombi 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dic def. Obina 11:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef and nn neologism. --Terence Ong 12:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable and no real information here either. Sfnhltb 13:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sfnhltb abakharev 14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. What is described in this entry is a Blumpkin, and that article has already been merged with Howard Stern. This is quite possibly a mispronunciation of blumpkin. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well... I can see things are not going well for my lil' stubbo at all. Lumpkin, LOL, what a funny word! Sounds kind of like pumpkin, except more vulgar... BRB, my girlfriend is gonna make me some lumpkin pie... :) Bubby the Tour G 05:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Not to mention the fact that I quite literally gagged upon reading it. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 07:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete neologism, non verifiable and the source is urbancraptionary ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - waste of space. +Hexagon1 (talk)
11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC) - (Speedy) Delete per Esquizombie, Catamorphism and BrianGC Deizio 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable unless, prior to end of AfD discussion, a better reference than the Urban Dictionary is cited and unless good, verifiable material is added to make the article more than a dictionary definition. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Move to Pumpkin (sexual activity) and redirect to Halloween. Failing consensus to do that, delete unless reliable sources provided. - brenneman{L} 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --James 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep since it is still a sexual slang term and there are many others on Wikipedia Michaelritchie200 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No real article and unlikely to become one. No reliable source. Tupsharru 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notice that most comments on deleting/keeping this article appear in the period after which the video in question first started to appear on the web. Clearly people use this site as a resouce for non-traditional terms such as this.User:AtlasMc 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article, though it is just a stub, has a right to be there. Last I checked, fellatio has its own article with no nomination for deletion. This article is just as that one, it explains something. Also, AtlasMc said above me, this website is often used as a resource for untraditional terms such as this. To delete this article would be to deprive people of said resource. Thunk 05:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment 1) Wikipedia is not urban dictionary 2) Fellatio is a far more common and discussed article, and has nice things like sources. It meets WP:V and WP:N among other criteria. This article does not do any of that. JoshuaZ 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one is being "deprived" of anything, as this information can be found elsewhere. The information is not being deleted, the article is. There's no need for a separate article. Perhaps make it a redirect to wherever such information is usually found. --DanielCD 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Catamorphism, Dpbsmith et al. FreplySpang (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia needs encylcopedic entries, it's not a dictionary of slang HawkerTyphoon 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - plus has anybody noticed Nikpulb? It is not like this is an isolated instance. There is a pattern of trying to stuff this into WP. I don't think we should be so accepting. (ouch,ouch,...) Shenme 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unencyclopedic, neologism, not urbandictionary, take your pick. Kuzaar 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Look, I've been telling my girlfriend that this is "our special thing" that I invented. Wikipedia spoils it for everybody. Seriously, delete per above. Herostratus 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I vote to keep it. Wikipedia is a prominent resource precisely because it is ecumenical, allowing both canonized intellectual entries while acting as a critical gloss on pop culture items. This has firmly entered pop culture since its explosion on ebaumsworld website, where there is a video clip of kids getting an unwitting grandmother to ask for "a lumpkin". This jest is specifically about her ignorance of vernacular, vulgar or not, and the purpose of Wikipedia should be to provide a resource with knowledge to eliminate our ignorance. This should be broad-based knowledge, whether highbrow, lowbrow, tasteful, or tasteless. This is not a case of promotiing a term of hate, discrimination, racism, or something similarly damaging. I can see the argument against Wikipedia allowing those sorts of things, as they abrogate people's fundamental rights, but this is mere squeamishness. As long as the wording of the entry is not vulgar (which it currently is not), I think it should stay. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.55.47.129 (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 result of the debate was speedy delete, blanked by author. — Mar. 25, '06 [08:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Not. Same author seems to have recreated. I guess it's business as usual. — Mar. 25, '06 [09:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Deleted by Marudubshinki. -- JLaTondre 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wyvern920
Non-notable website. Vanity article by User:Wyvern920 (and sock puppet Nojkceb). Alexa has no traffic data for it. -- RHaworth 06:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
RHaworth, I have been involved in some of the editing of Wyvern920.com so I am indeed connected with the site. However, I do not see this entry as shameless self-promotion. As we try to grow Wyvern920 into a more widely read news-humor blog I think a wiki description and history are acceptable. I do see your point that the article might appear as a mere vanity article, but since a rather small number of people know the complete, detailed history of the site, I think it is appropriate that we do the writing. Any suggestions as to improve the entry would be appreciated. --Nojkceb 07:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. JQ 06:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable and unencyclopedic. Bucketsofg 08:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Basic rule of thumb: if you need to create the article about yourself/your company/your website/etc. yourself, it's not notable. Nojkceb said it all with "As we try to grow Wyvern920 into a more widely read news-humor blog..." If it becomes notable in the future, then those who know the history can fill in the blanks. Until then, no dice. --Icarus 10:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable.--rhmoore 11:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB; if only a few people know the complete, detailed history of the site to write a detailed article about it, then it's probably not notable. --Kinu t/c 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the rules of WP:WEB, this site is not-notable, so we will remove it. It doesn't seem like it's causing any harm to have a page history exist for the site but if rules prohibit that then we'll procede according to those. --Nojkceb 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Kudos on the nn concession, if only more were like you. Deizio 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. Deizio 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per author request, tagged as such. --
Rory09606:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC) - Speedy delete - he took one hell of an effort to write all that though. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:11, 26 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. It's worth noting that some people have been persuaded to this view as well, somewhat unusually for such debates. -Splashtalk 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Over the Counter-Strike
As much as I like machinima, this one is non notable (it hasn't won awards like RVB, or attracted a spinoff following like Strangerhood) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep(Rolls eyes) Didn't this already get nominated for deletion and it was an incredible failure? It's the only notable CS:S Machinima I can assure you. I'm interested in what you think is more notable. --Tykell 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. That something more notable doesn't exist does not automatically make it notable.--Drat (Talk) 09:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It doesn't look like there was a previous nomination. Otherwise, this subpage would have already existed. I have mixed feelings about this, so I'm abstaining until I can think about it some more. — TKD::Talk 04:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like a valid article to me. Much like the Red vs Blue article, but needs cleanup. --OrbitOne 07:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
*Keep per being featured in a major magazine-PC Format. JoshuaZ 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per Hahnchen's latest comment. JoshuaZ 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I have mixed feelings on this. However, it should be mentioned that Tykell is one of the people behind this. Members of the shows production have linked to this from other articles in the past. In the words of one person from the show, "Admittedly, it WAS a bit of a vanity reference put up by the group to help popularize the series some more". If you need to link from other articles to help popularise the show, then it likely isn't popular enough yet for Wikipedia. See the point about original research here. As for the PC Format appearence, a lot of things appear in magazines. Doesn't necessarily make them notable enough.--Drat (Talk) 08:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep looks notable. --Terence Ong 13:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)- Delete per Hahnchen's comment. --Terence Ong 11:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. "I'd like to see a more notable CS:S Machinima" is sort of like me writing a vanity article about the four way stop down the street and then challenging you to find a more notable intersection in my town—it begs the question about whether such things are prima facie notable in the first place. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 02:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No more personal insults please, guys. JaysCyYoung 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctant, weak delete. Google returns 568 results for
+"Over the Counter-Strike" -wikipedia -site:bigpushproductions.com +machinima, but many of those are just forum posts and Wikipedia mirrors. OTCS is somewhat known in the machinima community, but with so few independent hits, it's unlikely that this article, outside of the plot summary, would be really verifiable from reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 02:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC) - Comment Email cameron@intelligence.co.za , the editor of PC Format, and verify it for yourself. Also links to people talking about the inclusion in the magazine: http://tech.vault9.net/forums/index.php?s=699441298ae4aa1480ed296185572d00&showtopic=22263&pid=282160&st=0&#entry282160 ("The 'Over The Counter-Strike' episodes is hilarious!") What else do you want verified? --Tykell 11:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not disputing that the PC Format bit is unverifiable, because it is verifiable. However, what else is there, besides just the inclusion on a bundled CD? Some random forum posts aren't generally suitable for inclusion here because who posted them isn't verifiable, nor are they likely to be reliable and/or reputable (by Wikipedia standards) with respect to the topic at hand.
- Delete - Not a notable piece of Machinima. - Hahnchen 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Further Comment - This will probably end up as a no consensus as I'm too late. Being placed onto the the disk of a gaming magazine doesn't make anything inherently notable. If being featured on a coverdisk is notability, then pretty much every single player Quake level is notable. I'm a keen gamer and keep tabs on the Counter-Strike and Half-Life communities, if this was a big machinima launch, I would have heard of it. Look around on Google and there's about 150 unique links for "over the counter-strike", this machinima is hardly covered anywhere, a single line news post here, a forum thread there. There aren't any reliable reviews for this, off the top of my head I can think of a handful of single player Half-Life maps which have garnered more attention than this and still aren't notable enough. And I'm pretty sure whoever wrote this massive article has direct ties to the guys who made the movie, it's a vanity piece. - Hahnchen 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yet Another Note - Have a look at their crew. There you'll find the pretty pictures of User:Tykell and User:JaysCyYoung - Hahnchen 04:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Hahnchen; WP:VAIN. Sandstein 08:38, 1 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 NO CONSENSUS. It is pretty obvious that nearly all those in the debate are simply making a recommendation in line with their personal POVs. That's not useful for determining the fate of an article. -Splashtalk 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dalmatian Kristallnacht
No Google results for the article's name, which appears to be the editor's original research and is highly POV to boot. Propose either deletion or merging with Zadar. ChrisO 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
- Nemanyya (talk • contribs • count) has been solely created to advertise this AfD in Serbian.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Niz 15:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, I think. The only usage I could find for anything resempling Zadar Kristallnacht is a fully English translation (Crystal Night in Zadar), and both uses are from the same source -- Slobodan Milosevic testifying and also questioning a witness at his trial. So it's not OR -- but we don't have enough material here for an article solely about this event. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence this in itself was significant in the course of recent Balkan history, and not enough sources to ensure NPOV on such a potentally partisan issue as this. Merge any neutral info to parent at will. Deizio 01:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: I have moved the article to Dalmatian kristallnacht, as it is better known. Also, gives google hits. Purqer 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There ARE google hits for 'Dalmatian Kristallnacht'. There is not much evidence in English media, but the event is well known in Serbo-Croatian media. Look at the testimony at ICTY with link provided. Purqer 04:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- In fact, if you enter 'kristalna noc zadar' into google (it is also called 'dalmatinska kristalna noc' etc.) you get plenty of hits. Enter "Dalmatian Kristallnacht” - plenty of hits. And just because there are no sources in english media it is not a reason to exclude it. if there are no sources online in english, other languages will do too, as per wiki policies, though there is an ICTY testimony in english at least. Purqer 05:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- For instance, 'Nezavisne novine' published this
- In fact, if you enter 'kristalna noc zadar' into google (it is also called 'dalmatinska kristalna noc' etc.) you get plenty of hits. Enter "Dalmatian Kristallnacht” - plenty of hits. And just because there are no sources in english media it is not a reason to exclude it. if there are no sources online in english, other languages will do too, as per wiki policies, though there is an ICTY testimony in english at least. Purqer 05:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
BEC
Promocija knjige o dogadjajima na prostorima bivse SFRJ
Ambasador SRJ u Becu Mihajlo Kovac ocenio je sinoc da je objavljivanje knjige "Putovanje u zemlju ratova - dozivljaj stranca u Jugoslaviji" znacajno jer je oznacilo "razbijanje crno-belog" klisea o dobrim i losim narodima, agresorima i zrtvama. Prilikom prezentacije knjige, austrijskog autora Kurta Keprunera, Kovac je kazao da knjiga daje razlog "da se ne nadje mir u snovima". Jugoslovenski ambasador je dodao da mnogi Austrijanci sada verovatno nece prihvatiti takvu knjigu, ali da ce Austrija u buducnosti biti zahvalna ljudima poput Keprunera. Predsednik Austrijsko-jugoslovensko drustvo (AJD), koje je organizovalo promociju knjige, Peter DJokic predstavio je njenog autora koji poslednjih 12 godina zivi u Nemackoj i koji je delo napisao inspirisan licnim poznanstvima i iskustvima na prostoru bivse Jugoslavije. Kepruner je kazao da je u bivsu Jugoslaviju dosao pre 10 godina i da su ga dogadjaji u toj zemlji inspirisali da u jednoj knjizi ovekoveci svoja vidjenja cetiri rata. Kepruner je, izmedju ostalog, podsetio na "brutalne primere" medijskih manipulacija sredstava javnog informisanja u Austriji i Nemackoj. On je naveo primer kada je grupa hrvatskih fanatika, potpomognuta policijom, 2. maja 1991. godine u Zadru izvela pogrom, poznat kao "Dalmatinska kristalna noc" kada je demolirano i opljackano 116 srpskih lokala. Taj dogadjaj zapadni mediji su precutali iako je Jugoslavija bila u sredistu zbivanja, istakao je Kepruner. On je, navodeci i druge primere medijske manipulacije, kritikovao zapadnu stampu zbog iskrivljene slike o uzrocima i akterima krize u bivsoj Jugoslaviji. Kepruner je, takodje, ocenio da ne bi bilo pravedno svu krivicu pripisati stranim sredstvima javnog informisanja i zapadnim politicarima, jer deo odgovornosti snose i lokalni akteri.
-
-
- In short, it is a news in which ambasador of SRY in Vienna talks on promotion of a book of Kurt Kepruner, in which it is explained that events such as Dalmatinska kristalna noc were not promoted in western media, and in fact it is referred by Kepruner as a "brutal example" of media manipulation in Austria and Germany (i.e. the selective presentation of information). So, it is no surprise you cant find any reference to this event in western media. This book, I think, can also be quoted as a source - I will find more details. The sources DO NOT HAVE TO BE ONLINE (and this book is not online). Purqer 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- User:Purqer has been idefinitely blocked. Apparently there are too many accounts such as User:Purger and User:Purrger which all share predilection for the same pages on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Strong KEEP - I'm shocked that someone would want to delete this article. Although, I do have a problem with the name of the article, it should be called "Dalmatian Kristallnacht", that is the more correct term of what happened. Also, the incident is probably not as important as other incidents that lead to the Balkan wars, but it certainly deserves an article. Secondly, there ARE Google results, but just as Purqer said, the info doesn't have to be online in order for the article to exsist. I suggest to all people who's best argument is "No Google results" - read more books, and spend less time in front of the computer. It's also bad for your eyes... --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Conclusion, change the name of the article to "Dalmatian Kristallnacht" --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have changed the title already. Purqer 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong KEEP: one of the evidence for the current happening in Croatia. In 1991. in just one night in Zadar (Croatia) 116 Serbian owned shops were demolished. Prelude to ethnic cleansing, in which more than 400 000 Serbs were deliberately expelled from Croatia. --Manojlo 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Strong KEEP: You can delete this article, but you can't delete history!!!!!!!!
-
- Strong KEEP --Jovanvb 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge: the ONLY official proof that supports the existance of such an event is in the transcript that was provided with the article, in the form of testimony and verbal exchange between the witness (who overheard it, and not seen it with his own eyes) of the account and Mr. Miloshevic during ICTY trial. Even though the event is sad, it was talked about in only 4 lines of the transcript, which could suggest the importance of the event, even to the Serb side. Damage to anyone's and everyone's property was widespread during the war, with cities being razored to the ground, so I don't know why this particular event should stand out..
Svetlana Miljkovic 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge, whatever's better. Bottom line - it needs to be kept for it is a valid happening. --Filip (§) 09:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge, First keep then start a vote for merging --Milan Tešovic 13:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but provide some more information. In case that there is no more info on this event, then merge with Homeland war in Croatia. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (merge) and rename. Why a German name, it's too POV to connect the happening to the holocaust.--TheFEARgod 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Noone is connecting it with the Holocaust, it's just a name. You can't change Kristallnacht, because it SOUNDS like something to do with the Holocaust. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it's a Holocaust reference. There is no other context for the term Kristallnacht other than the pogrom of November 9, 1938. There's no reason Milosevic would have used this term other than to make a sidelong reference to Croatia's fascist interlude during WWII. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, too bad. What do you propose we do? I suggest changing it to "Dalmatian attempt of ethnic cleansing" or maybe something more simple that has the same meaning. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- First, determine if the event is worthy of an article in itself (as opposed to a being just one of a zillion atrocities committed by all sides in the former Yugoslavia during that period); determine what it is called by other people than Milosevic; and get independent verification of the events described. Are there any neutral (neither Serb nor Croat) descriptions of the incident? "Well, too bad" indeed. (I do note that the that translation sourced from the Free Republic mentions the event, and footnotes the reference to two books written a decade after the purported event.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, Milosevic is not the one that described that incident as "Kristallnacht", it was described in "Travels in the Land of War: Experiences of a Stranger in Yugoslavia" by Kurt Kepruner (Austrian-born author from Germany). Here's what he wrote: The Tudjman regime began with a purge of all non-Croats in state offices. Serbian journalists in the media were fired. Serb teachers were fired. The Croatian media organized a campaign against Serbs and everything Serbian, Yugoslavia, and the JNA. Croatian superiority and racism were promoted.
- Well, too bad. What do you propose we do? I suggest changing it to "Dalmatian attempt of ethnic cleansing" or maybe something more simple that has the same meaning. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it's a Holocaust reference. There is no other context for the term Kristallnacht other than the pogrom of November 9, 1938. There's no reason Milosevic would have used this term other than to make a sidelong reference to Croatia's fascist interlude during WWII. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Kepruner was told: “Serbs are inferior to Croats, they have smaller skulls and smaller brains. Croatia is for Croats only, while Serbs are deemed a minority. Armed Croat interior ministry troops were encouraged to attack Serbs. The Serbian Cyrillic alphabet was outlawed. Serbs were evicted from government housing. Streets were renamed after Nazi/Ustasha leaders such as Mile Budak, a racist ideologue of the NDH regime. The Croat police and military forces began wearing the “U” symbol which had the same symbolism as a Nazi swastika. The police tolerated private acts of ethnic cleansing and terror against “Croatian Serbs” which Kepruner described as a “Dalmatian Kristallnacht”".
-
-
-
- Wasn't it really similar to what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I did. It is just a name. Noone was connecting it with the Holocaust, untill you mentioned it. So, I explained why its kinda similar to the Kristallnacht (not Holocaust, I said what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany) and then you asked me a question, and I answered it. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong delete. Serbian propaganda, original research, POV, non-existent word in English. Croatian historian 19:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, our good old Croatian historian has been blocked for a while for vandalism... Ha, ha, I don't think we should count this vote, ha, ha! --Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- B.M. - I think that the process related to your failed request to become an administrator has revealed much about your own credibility. Not to mention a tendancy to leave inflammatory remarks in Serbian on a number of user pages. EurowikiJ 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Čini ti se. Možda ti se priviđa hrvatski :-) --Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- B.M. - I think that the process related to your failed request to become an administrator has revealed much about your own credibility. Not to mention a tendancy to leave inflammatory remarks in Serbian on a number of user pages. EurowikiJ 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and merge. I'm not sure with what article it should be merged as there are few possibilities. Lakinekaki 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Once the veracity of the incident is verified -- and I'm naturally a litle skeptical of the Milosevic mentions, but whatever in here can be independently verified (the German press seems to have some sources) -- the useful information would fit in History of modern Croatia (only because that's where Croatian War of Independence redirects.) -jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep --JustUser 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep --Luka Jačov 01:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Both sides of the tragic story of the civil war in former Yugoslavia must be heard.--Marko M 09:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This article is nothing more than one of those sordid pieces of propaganda that served to justify Milosevic's wars in the former Yugoslavia and bring Serbian minorities in a state of nationalistic histeria. Furthermore, and more shockingly, the reference is being made to a Kristallnacht in which Nazis carried out pogroms over Jews and destroyed their property. That is unforgivably scandalous and should be enough to see the article dispatched into a cyber-oblivion. Also, an event of this magnitude would have undoubtedly caught the attention of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague. I should also like to draw attention to the author of the article Purger who has emerged after User:Medule has been exposed of using a number of sockpuppets to push his POV remarks to a number of articles related to Croatia's history. Besides, though many participants in this vote have made their standing point abundantly clear, it would be a good idea to go through a list of their contributions - particularly on the user pages - to ascertain the degree of their neutrality. Also a thorough check for sockpuppets is in order. EurowikiJ 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Your reasoning is flawed. In fact, for events in Gospic the Tribunal was involved, and Norac was persecuted. Not so for events in Zadar and Trogir. That only speaks of the selectivity of ICTY - it does not claim to be competent for NATO war crimes, nor for what happened in May in Zadar nor it does investigate crimes against Serbs nearly as much as it should. It has even admitted that, saying that Serbs are responsible for not givnig enough evidence (!!). The paralels with Nazis are quite in place, knowing what Ustashi have done in WWII, and they were drawn by a German for that sake, and also by Feral Tribune, a purely croatian newspaper. The regime of Franjo Tudjman, that changed a name of a square in Zagreb from the square of victims of fascism to square of Mile Budak - was in many ways, to Serbs in Croatia, reminiscent of NDH. In fact, Edo Murtic, a prominent Croatian, has reported that Tudjman has told him that he intends to finsh what Pavelic has started, and that 250,000 serbs can pack their siutcases (1/3 killed in NDH, 1/3 expelled in 95, 1/3 to be assimilated). That he in fact expelled more than 1/2, and that from 12% number of Serbs fell to 3% is well known. EurowikiJ has an agenda to hide this side of the story, as have the Croatian users, but Croatian POV is certainly quite biased. The term 'hrvatska sutnja' is a well known term for the attitude of coverup in Croatia - do not make waves, and the crimes of Croatians will be forgotten - they think. Well, not so on wikipedia. Wikipedia policies say that ALL sides of a story should be presented in a NPOV way, and should not be supressed just because some nation with nazi-past wants to hide it. It is a valid article just as any other, and persecution of Serbs were real - the Serbian victims of the pogroms in Croatia will have their voice! And that voice says DO NOT DELETE REPORTS OF CROATIAN CRIMES Pirkovank 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying that there was not such persecution; certainly there was, by all sides. There are two questions here: is the deliberately inflammatory neologism "Zadar Kristallnacht" or "Dalmation Kristallnacht" an appropriate title for the event, given that neither of them have other than minimal use in English (the language of this encyclopedia)? And is there enough information about this event to warrant a seperate article rather than a piece in a more generic article about ethnic cleansings during the post-Tito years in the former Yugoslavia? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- there is plenty of information about the event - even on internet, just type "dalmatian kristallnacht". there is a whole book on the events in dalmatia - quoted as a source in the article. Note that the author of the book is neither Serbian nor Croatian, but an Austrian. He has used the title Dalmatian Kristallnacht, among others, and that alone makes it an article deserving its place. There is also an article by Sultz, or what was her name, quoted also in references - and that is online, in english, and there are plenty of other google hits. There are numerous accounts of these events in Serbian and Croatian media. Feral Tribune, A CROATIAN newspaper has called these events kristallnacht. So, the events are well documented and substantial. The fact that something is reported in media/books earns this thing a place here, according to the stated policies of wikipedia. The "Zadar Kristallnacht" was perhaps a bad choice of a title, but Dalmatian Kristallnacht - as the events are refered to commonly - has plenty of hits on google. Had the article been titled like this, google check would have given you satisfactory support and this whole deletion would not have been proposed - note that NONE of the original reasons for listing this in AfD hold with the title Dalmatian Kristallnacht - plenty of google hits, lots of testimonies by third parties (neither Serbs nor Croats), even a book, etc. As for the use of Kristallnacht itself, it is not an English word, but it is used in English for the events in Germany. The title is derived from this, so that is why it should be called Dalmatian Kristallnacht (and indeed is in articles in english) rather than Crystal night - it is a language question. That you might find the title inflamatory, is your POV, the only thing that matters is that there are events which are reffered to by this name (Dalmatinska Kristalna noc in Serbian and Croatian, and the proper translation, which is indeed used in English, is Dalmatian Kristallnacht, as you can see from Google hits). Many other pieces of POV in media that Serbs find inflamatory exist - for instance, detention camps in Bosnia of Bosnian Serbs were called "concentration camps" even though they were quite different, not withstanding the atrocities, but they were not concentration camps as there were in WWII, then calling some events massacres, and not the others. The inflamatory language was used to demonize Serbs, and that is quite widespread. So, inflamatory language exists and it is POV to judge what is inflamatory and what is proper - wiki should just REPORT things, as they are called by others, report, not judge. And in this case, Dalmatian Kristallnacht is how it is called - by Serbs, Croats, and indeed by third parties. That is name of the event, that you find it objectionable is not an issue. Pirkovank 20:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- to add to this, I personally find the comparison quite in place - look what happened there, and in Germany. VERY SIMILAR! and so, there are various opinions, but the only fact that matters is that this is how these (by no means minor) events are called (not only by Serbs in fact by Croats (Feral Tribune) , Germans, Austrians... )Pirkovank 20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Not to rain on your parade here Pirkovank, but i get really annoyed when Serb extremists try and equate modern state of Croatia with NDH. Croatia was thoroughly de-ustashized in the 45 years following WW2, same as Germany, and noone in the right mind can claim that those people acted out of the same motives as the fascist government of NDH. It's the same bullshit Serbs have been trying to push for the last 20 years. While it is true that some of the radical elements entered Croatian politics after 1990., mainly through former post-WW2 emigrants from US and Canada, it is malicious to say that their respective ideologies shaped Croatian politics in the 1990s. A certain degree of right wing influence did exist, but Tudjman was a former partisan and a marxist for chrissakes! Only in his later years, when he started to push for more Croatian autonomy in the Yugoslavia did he come under persecution of communist authorities, as did so many emminent Croatian politicians, most of them marxists themselves. The term Croatian Silence refers to the period between 1971 to 1991 when all political activity towards greater autonomy for Croatia within Yugoslavia was deemed "dangerous" and "disrupitive". Your twisting of the term is not only malicious, it is offensive to the greatest degree! And besides, who can argue that in 1990 the goal of Croatian politics was, as ever only more autonomy? No ill intent towards the Serbs was implied. It was Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies that decided to use the political climate of the end of the Cold War to try and realise the dream of Greater Serbia, and are therefore DIRECTLY RESPONISBLE for all the wars of Yugoslavian sucession. In fact, were it not for Milosevic and the Greater Serbian extremists, Yugoslavia could have seceded peacefully, much like Czecho-Slovakia. And that's THE TRUTH. And no amount od manipulation of facts on the part of your buddies here can change that fact. So, while i do support the notion that no truth should be hidden in Wikipedia, the malicious bias of this article make it most deserving of DELETION. --Dr.Gonzo 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- And I get really annoyed when Croatian extremists try to equate the position of all Serbs with that of Greater Serbia - Serbs in Croatia were truly frightened from what was going on, and you can choose to be blind about that but that is how it was. You claim that noone in the right mind can claim that the motives of Tudjman were similar to that of NDH. And then you proceed to claim that actions of Serbian side, and opinions of those who speak merely of SERB SUFFERING AND PERSECUTION are those who want Greater Serbia. Well, to me that proposition is just as laughable and in sick mind as the other claim seems to you. You just fail to see the other side of the story - you are probably brainwashed and think that all Serbs wanted greater Serbia. That is far from truth. In fact, Serbs in Croatia were frightened - and how they could not have been, when their houses and churches were painted with neo-nazi grafitti, when their houses were blown up and their parents or granparents HAVE LIVED THROUGH THIS in WWII and were expecting the worst. Your suggestion that it was they who wanted Greater Serbia was insultive and malicious. But you fail to see that. That Milosevic wanted Greater Serbia is a Croatian myth, all he wanted was power for himself, and serbian nationalists (and there were some who actually wanted Greater Serbia, just like there were those in Croatia who wanted NDH back - but they were far more minor from what your Croatian propaganda machine has brainwashed you into thinking) blame him for that. What happened and how and why Yugoslavia fell apart is far from undisputed and Serbs and Croats will probably never agree about that. Your POV is not more justified that that of Serbs just because it is yours. Wikipedia has contributors who disagree about many issues, and the principle that opinions should be presented nevertheless. You want to exclude the side of the story that you dont like. Learn some tolerance - there are people who see things differently than you do, not because they are for Greater Serbia, but because they have different point of view and come from different backgrounds and you should respect that, and supress your bias and hatred. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Strong Delete or at the very least merge. This is really quite typical of Greater Serbian propaganda, trying to blow up individual incidents out of all proportions to make it seem like the Serbian side is the victim of organized persecution and therefore justified in its actions. Let's not forget, May 2nd 1991 is the date of the Borovo Selo incident where nearly 40 croatian policemen were killed or wounded and their bodies mutilated while trying to disarm armed Serbian rebels who had killed 2 of their colleagues a day before, while they were on routine patrol. The bloody images were aired on Croatian Television later that day which started riots in many Croatian cities. While the loss of life and property is most regretable, most of those responsible were brought to justice. It certainly cannot be argued that the event was planned or that it represented any kind of "ethnic cleansing" type activity on the Croatian side. The claims of the "british reporter" are also very much biased. While it is true that many Croatian cities saw the emergence of NDH related graffiti in those days, any sociologist would argue that it was done out of spite, pure frustration. People tend to choose strong symbols when put in similar situations, but that does not necessarily mean they believe in ideology behind it. It's a statement of revolt, of spite, and desperation. Besides, present day Croatia has only 5% representation of the extreme right option in its parliament (and even this does not represent the most extreme elements) while present day Serbia has these political options represented around 30% . It goes to show that this so-called "Neo-ustashe" ideology did not stick nearly as well as those Greater Serbian propagandists want you to think. But I digress. In any case, this theme does not deserve a separate article and should be deleted or merged. --Dr.Gonzo 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why is this article a Greater Serbian propaganda, while it merely speak of suffering of Serbs. To you, everything written from point of view of Serbs is Greater Serbian propaganda. One might say that everything written from your point of view is Ustasha propaganda - and indeed that is how it seems to many Serbs. Cool down, and try to understand other point of view, and learn to be respectful even if you disagree. As for your rationalizations, put things into perspective. The original Kristallnacht had a killing as its cause - a killing that was USED BY NAZI MEDIA to provoke rampage on Jews. Dont you think Germans were just as revolted, frustrated, did it out of spite towards jews due to this propaganda before Kristallnacht happened, just as you say Croats were. Does that excuse them from responsibility. You speak of Borovo incident, yet title of article here is Borovo massacre - should that perhaps be deleted as Croatian propaganda with inflamatory title? If that was the cause (moreover, the hysterical reporting in Croatian media) than that should be part of the article. You fail to see that the whole story of Grater Serbia was in fact used (and is still used) by Croatian media to cause this frustration and hatred towards Serbs, just as Serbs have been frightened by NDH - and indeed, they had real reasons to be frightened. If media is to blame for what happened in YU (and I think they share great part of responsibility as they spread hatred on all sides) that should also be explained here. There is never going to be any compromise if people just stick to their POV instead of reporting things and events in NPOV - and in the case of ex-Yu war, there is another side to the story that you refuse to hear and want to erase. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- As for your quoting of percentages, HDZ from that time to me is the same thing as Serbian Radical party is to you, and indeed, there were the true extremists (Beli Orlovi etc.) that had far lesser support. That you see things differently, is just your POV and you are probably unaware how biased (or perhaps ignorant or brainwashed) you are. Pirkovank 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why is this article a Greater Serbian propaganda, while it merely speak of suffering of Serbs. To you, everything written from point of view of Serbs is Greater Serbian propaganda. One might say that everything written from your point of view is Ustasha propaganda - and indeed that is how it seems to many Serbs. Cool down, and try to understand other point of view, and learn to be respectful even if you disagree. As for your rationalizations, put things into perspective. The original Kristallnacht had a killing as its cause - a killing that was USED BY NAZI MEDIA to provoke rampage on Jews. Dont you think Germans were just as revolted, frustrated, did it out of spite towards jews due to this propaganda before Kristallnacht happened, just as you say Croats were. Does that excuse them from responsibility. You speak of Borovo incident, yet title of article here is Borovo massacre - should that perhaps be deleted as Croatian propaganda with inflamatory title? If that was the cause (moreover, the hysterical reporting in Croatian media) than that should be part of the article. You fail to see that the whole story of Grater Serbia was in fact used (and is still used) by Croatian media to cause this frustration and hatred towards Serbs, just as Serbs have been frightened by NDH - and indeed, they had real reasons to be frightened. If media is to blame for what happened in YU (and I think they share great part of responsibility as they spread hatred on all sides) that should also be explained here. There is never going to be any compromise if people just stick to their POV instead of reporting things and events in NPOV - and in the case of ex-Yu war, there is another side to the story that you refuse to hear and want to erase. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Here's the thing - articles that can't be supported by verifiable sources are considered original research. You can look up the NOR policy of Wikipedia to understand why that's a strict no-no. And frankly, even those few sources that you do cite are strongly biased and can't be taken at face value. There are no official reports on this, no hard numbers, no nothing. Just another myth Serbs use today to excuse themselves of all responsibility. And you may be surprised but I'm really quite familiar with the political situation in modern Serbia and have visited several times in the past few years. I think I can objectively say that the Serb nation today, if it were viewed as a person, suffers from a case of amnesia, denial and PTSD. There's a strong political movement to blame everything on Milosevic as if noone else had anything to do with the genocide and the nationalist expansionism and everything else. There is also a very strong media campaign still ongoing that tries to equate the position of Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Yugoslavia, so as to make it like everyone is equally to blame for everything that happened. The truth however is, that Serbs controlled virtually ALL the military capacities of YNA and were therefore in a vastly superior position in 1991, they were the fiercest in their agressive expansionist nationalism and were by far the largest of all Former Yugoslavia nationalities. It was only due to a lack of political vision on the part of Serb leaders, and a lack of loyalty on the part of the squabbling clans within Serbia proper that the whole Yugoslavia wasn't absorbed in a matter of months. But then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? In any case, I don't even try to claim that there are no level-headed people in Serbia today, as in those days, but the fact that the Serbian Radical Party can get 30% of the vote in 2005. means that nothing has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Serbia needs to face up to the facts, nothing can change before that happens. And by supporting flawed, biased and unnecessarily inflammatory articles like this one that serves only to propagate modern Serbian myths you are directly preventing that from happening any time soon. I mean, for fvck sake, even completely neutral observers in this very thread are claiming this is nothing but pure propaganda, what more do you need?? --Dr.Gonzo 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, this topic is clearly not original research. Read what NOR says, and you will see it plainly, as others have already noted. Second, you just have admitted that even in your twisted understanding of Serbian issues, Serbs have their POV that is different from yours. For all wikipedia is concerned, it does not care who is right - all that matters is what is out there, it should not even attempt to determine what the truth is - that would be OR. It has to report about ISSUES. And the issue clearly exists. That so many Serbs feel that they are not treated fairly in the Western media is no secret. For instance, some polls put number of Serbs who think ICTY is biased against Serbs at close to 90%, while supporters of what might be called nationalist position have less than 40% now, which is indeed up from 25% 6 years ago, largely due to the tribunal bias. Serbian Radical party, FYI, does not earn votes on nationalist issues so much as on economic issues and percieved corruption of new government. I for instance am neither their nor SPS supporter, but am much more symphatetic to their point of view than in the 90s, as are many other. The thing which is not understood by people like you is that Serbs are not denying their responsibility, but objecting to the twisted view that they are to blame for everything, and that Croats and all others were innocent, or vastly less responsible than Serbs. That is simply not true - Tudjman has openly admitted that there would be no war had Croatia not wanted it. Croatians were those who choose the path of breaking constitution, arming and attacking federal government. Nationalist euphoria existed in Croatia, and it was the cause of break-up just as much as any other. But Serbs are blamed 3 times more than they are supposed to, while others are amnested. That creates the atmosphere of victimhood in Serbia and is precisely what you, if you were wise, would like to avoid. After the I world war, everyone was blaiming Germany and Germany was unjustly treated. And what happened? Cant you learn from history. The lies in Croatian media, constant presentation of twisted version of history and brainwashing (like the absurd claims that, for instance, in Vukovar 8000 JNA soldiers died or that they have destroyed more tanks and airplains than NATO did in Kosovo War, for instance), are meant to homogenize new Croatian state, but these lies cannot be accepted as history here. Your bias is understandable, but it does not give you the right to be the judge of what is truth and to impose your POV as only worthy of a word here. That is clearly against NPOV policies. History is always twisted to serve political purpose - so Tito equated genocide of Ustashe with crimes of his rival antifascist Mihajlovic, and promoted equality in crimes even if that was far from truth. Now again, history is being twisted and crimes of Serbs are inflated, while suffering of Serbs and crimes against Serbs are not to be talked about. Of course Serbs will object. There were more than a million Serbian refugees, more than any other nation in YU wars, the Serbs are the largest victims of ethnic cleansing, especially in Croatia and now in Kosovo. And then you want to scilence the truth about crimes commited on Serbs. Well, if you cannot understand why people who opposed Milosevic in the 90s now object to this twisting of truth (in fact you cant beleive it, according to what you say), this should give you a hint. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Here's the thing - articles that can't be supported by verifiable sources are considered original research. You can look up the NOR policy of Wikipedia to understand why that's a strict no-no. And frankly, even those few sources that you do cite are strongly biased and can't be taken at face value. There are no official reports on this, no hard numbers, no nothing. Just another myth Serbs use today to excuse themselves of all responsibility. And you may be surprised but I'm really quite familiar with the political situation in modern Serbia and have visited several times in the past few years. I think I can objectively say that the Serb nation today, if it were viewed as a person, suffers from a case of amnesia, denial and PTSD. There's a strong political movement to blame everything on Milosevic as if noone else had anything to do with the genocide and the nationalist expansionism and everything else. There is also a very strong media campaign still ongoing that tries to equate the position of Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Yugoslavia, so as to make it like everyone is equally to blame for everything that happened. The truth however is, that Serbs controlled virtually ALL the military capacities of YNA and were therefore in a vastly superior position in 1991, they were the fiercest in their agressive expansionist nationalism and were by far the largest of all Former Yugoslavia nationalities. It was only due to a lack of political vision on the part of Serb leaders, and a lack of loyalty on the part of the squabbling clans within Serbia proper that the whole Yugoslavia wasn't absorbed in a matter of months. But then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? In any case, I don't even try to claim that there are no level-headed people in Serbia today, as in those days, but the fact that the Serbian Radical Party can get 30% of the vote in 2005. means that nothing has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Serbia needs to face up to the facts, nothing can change before that happens. And by supporting flawed, biased and unnecessarily inflammatory articles like this one that serves only to propagate modern Serbian myths you are directly preventing that from happening any time soon. I mean, for fvck sake, even completely neutral observers in this very thread are claiming this is nothing but pure propaganda, what more do you need?? --Dr.Gonzo 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I beg to differ on the NOR issue but thats for this arbitration to decide. In any case, I find it interesting that you so readily proclaim me a victim of "brainwashing" but you certainly don't think there is anything wrong with your information or your bias? Also, you are trying to implant the notion that Wikipedia is somehow pro-Croatia and anti-Serbia biased? Do you even realise how rediculous that sounds? Someone else already said it better - POV + POV doesnt equal NPOV. Therefore, any strongly biased article like this one (which also bears an unnecessarily inflammatory title - Kristallnacht, an obvious reference to the Holocaust, as to imply that Serbs suffered the same fate at the hands of Croats in the last war) needs to be radically NPOV-ed or deleted. And since you and your buddies obviously won't let it be NPOV-ed, then there is only one choice. Nobody is denying the Serb Krajina tragedy, what we are denying is that it played out quite as you want to portray it. Croatia has moved on, when will we be able to say the same thing about Serbia? Oh, and by the way, the Vukovar casualties number is agreed upon not only by Croatian historians but most of the foreign researchers who have studied the topic. Only Serbian historians deny it... Why? And why oh why do we always come back to the Ustashe? Ever heard of the Godwins Law? Look it up. --Dr.Gonzo 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Every person has a bias, and I have lived in Serbia, you have just visited it, and I have lived outside Serbia so I think I am relatively well informed. What surprised me when I came to West is that CNN is worse in its methods of propaganda than RTS or other televisions in ex-yu. Brainwashing is universal in the world. What makes me think you are brainwashed is your conviction - but of course, it is hard to tell. Wikipedia is certainly not inherently pro-Croatian or pro-any side, and it should not be, as the very NPOV policies make it in principle more objective than any other media wich all - CNN, NYTimes, BBC, or HRT or RTS or B92 or Feral in fact all have some agenda and wikipedia has only users wich come from all around the world. The good thing about wikipedia is that it allows every side of the story to be presented - according to NPOV policies. And this is exactly why this article must stay. The only reason some articles in wiki are biased in this or other way is that some people push their POV, but the community, given large enough number of participatnts, will eventually ensure that this is avoided. You are strongly pushing Croatian POV, and this is why you oppose this article. You claim that someone will not allow this article to be NPOV-ed, while it is exactly you and your buddies who does not allow articles about Vukovar battle or such to be NPOV-ed. Have you even made a single edit to it to correct what you think is wrong? You are assuming something, that is assuming bad faith but that is wrong attitude. In fact, many people just dont understand the other side and if you explain your POV then a compromise can be found. Read what NPOV means - it says that claims should be attributed, not claimed by wiki. It exactly means PRESENTING different POV-s with relevant sources. Of course, things are not so simple, but a compromise can be worked out with good will. But you refuse to allow even existance of this article - note that POV is a separate issue here. You cannot get rid of the other side of the story, no matter how you want to hide it. You can attribute POV, but not delete it, since Serbians are a large group of people whose sufferings are relevant as are their opinions and perceptions. As for what you say about Vukovar, its simply ridicilous. It is exactly Croatians who have an agenda of making this into some wild inflated heroism story - and what other historians are you talking about. Who has an interest in that - there are many questions but you cant deny that Serbs have much better sources about their losses. Anyway, there are many topics which are hot and disputed by opposing sides, and wiki NPOV policies are clear. If there is no concensus (and there is not despite what you try to say by involving some western historians who after all, got it from you - it is all media war after all, historical distance is not there for no reason and many topics in history are disputed for decades if not centuries) and therefore, the best one can do is EXACTLY to present both sides. It would be far better if for instance Vukovar battle article would be divided into two - Serbian version and Croatian version. So, a reader can see what each side CLAIMS. That would simplify situation/avoid edit war there. Wikipedia does not judge what is true, that is OR. It just presents things, and in wars, recent especially, there are always two sides and two stories. That holds for many other topics, and not just YU-wars, and this article should not be an exception. As for the title, dont you find Borovo massacre inflamatory? Yet that is the title - and there are many more here. If there is bias in western media, that does not mean that WIKI should be biased, and in fact it is not. If policies are to be followed. Pirkovank 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ on the NOR issue but thats for this arbitration to decide. In any case, I find it interesting that you so readily proclaim me a victim of "brainwashing" but you certainly don't think there is anything wrong with your information or your bias? Also, you are trying to implant the notion that Wikipedia is somehow pro-Croatia and anti-Serbia biased? Do you even realise how rediculous that sounds? Someone else already said it better - POV + POV doesnt equal NPOV. Therefore, any strongly biased article like this one (which also bears an unnecessarily inflammatory title - Kristallnacht, an obvious reference to the Holocaust, as to imply that Serbs suffered the same fate at the hands of Croats in the last war) needs to be radically NPOV-ed or deleted. And since you and your buddies obviously won't let it be NPOV-ed, then there is only one choice. Nobody is denying the Serb Krajina tragedy, what we are denying is that it played out quite as you want to portray it. Croatia has moved on, when will we be able to say the same thing about Serbia? Oh, and by the way, the Vukovar casualties number is agreed upon not only by Croatian historians but most of the foreign researchers who have studied the topic. Only Serbian historians deny it... Why? And why oh why do we always come back to the Ustashe? Ever heard of the Godwins Law? Look it up. --Dr.Gonzo 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't assume anything and if you take a better look at my edit history you'll see I tried to reach a consensus with serbian Wikipedians on numerous articles and numerous ocassions. But then those users turn to plain vandalism and rv wars. It's unacceptable. A user called Medule in particular has been very troublesome in the past few weeks and has earned himself a ban so he(she?) now edits under a number of sockpuppets. I've been involved in the revert war on Battle of Vukovar article not because I think Serbian view should not be represented, but because I try hard to stick to the NPOV policy, in particular to avoid Content forking and Undue weight. It's the same reason why I believe that this article should be deleted and merged, because there's no need to create a separate article about an incident that is (in the context of the Croatian War of Independance and Wars of Yugoslav sucession) - insignificant, to say the least. After all, it wasn't me who started this arbitration or requested the deletion, but I do have an opinion and I hope it counts when it's time to make a decision. Oh, and by the way, I don't find the title of Borovo selo massacre inflammatory because it gives an objective definition of an event. Or maybe you want to deny the fact that the bodies of those policemen were unnecessarily and brutally mutilated? Which was caught on tape no less? Oh, but you readily support calling this article "Kristallnacht". How very neutral of you. --Dr.Gonzo 13:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Strong Delete or at the very least merge. Unfortunately, many users here (and their sockpuppets apparently) have great difficulty distinguishing intelligent, dispassionate analysis from outright propaganda. And holding up the Feral Tribune, a contrarian satirical tabloid, as support for a full-blown "Kristallnacht" is laughable. --AHrvojic 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Feral tribune is NOT EXCLUSIVELY a satirical tabloid - in fact, it has part with serious articles, and they have honestly talked about expulsions of serbs. You are just holding an extreme Croatian POV, and it seems you also lack honesty - perhaps you never read the Feral, or you pretend not to know about its nature. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong KEEP This incident must remain documented. It is appalling that someone may consider removing the information about a controversial issue. The very notion only demonstrates that the Dalmatian Kristallnacht is alive in the public mind and its concealment profits the negotiators of hate and violence. Just as humanity cannot forget the evil of the Nazi regimes in the 30’s and 40’s, it must also never overlook the resurgence of Nazi ideologies in the world of today. The suggestion that this is an example of “Greater Serbian propaganda” is about as valid as the suggestion that the articles on the Holocaust represent “Greater Jewish propaganda”. It is crucial that the Yugoslav wars’ descriptions on Wikipedia remain impartial by providing information on the atrocities committed by all sides in the conflict. kilternkafuffle 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UCT)
-
- This is kilternkafuffle's first contribution on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- True, but that does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion on this issue. I assure you that this is my only account, but it is also expressively stated on this page that this is not a vote, so the matter itself is more important than the number of participants. kilternkafuffle 01:53, 29 March 2006 (UCT)
-
- This is kilternkafuffle's first contribution on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I must admit, I am a complete outsider on this one, I know very little in detail about the Serbo-Croatian struggles. I do, however, know POV propoganda when I see it, and this is it. The title is POV, the writing is poor and POV, and all the (very limited) verification I can get on this also looks heavily biased. A New York Times search reveals nothing as big as this happening in Zadar around the times mentioned in the article. (There are several reports about Zadar in 1991, but none about this.) Sorry guys, the lack of verifiability I'm seeing is troubling. I would think something this big should be much better covered... It's perhaps not nearly as notable as it's made out to be. Grandmasterka 10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- NYtimes quotes certainly do not contain all the truth of this world. Try searching for some lesser known scientific topic, and see how you go. This is just invalid reasoning. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- What in the world does science have to do with this? (Speaking of flawed reasoning.) That doesn't compare to a widely reported conflict such as this one. You're trying to tell me that the Times had 12 reports out of Zadar in 1991 alone, but somehow missed the bombing of 116 cafés?? And Time Magazine? (These are the only sources I can find that archive their news back to 1991 for free...) I realize these are English sources, but 116 cafés?? It's very difficult for me to swallow that this would have been missed by EVERYONE except by Serbian sources. When I strongly outgoogle any sources for this, that's real cause for concern, and the rampant sock/meatpuppetry on this page really doesn't help my opinion of this. Grandmasterka 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- well, science is an example of something that does not give rise to that many emotions, and therefore, you can find many obscure topics in this very wikipedia, most of them never get a line in NYTimes, and yet, noone thinks they should be deleted just because NYT does not write about them. As for your second claim, that is exactly the essence of the problem. Western media DID NOT REPORT about such events. Thats not because events did not exist, thats because NYT had an agenda. NYT in fact does not report many things which happen in the world, and yet that does not mean the things are not happening. Do you think Abu-gharib would be reported if photos have not leaked? What gets into NYT depends on many things, editorial policy including, and Serbs didnt get their share of the story. I read NYT all the time, and am aware of things happening in my country, and have a pretty good idea how much of it gets there and why. So, blowing up of 116 cafes didnt get reported - thats what the Austrian guy was objecting to if you read the link - he wrote a whole book about it. And thats what Serbs are objecting to. That NYT is biased is no excuse to exclude Serbian side of the story. And if you think NYT is not biased, you are quite naive, I can tell you that. Pirkovank 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Times magazine is even worse. And remember - these events are not reported ONLY in Serbian media (in fact, they were not reported there as much as some other events), but also in Croatian media, and in few Western sources - most notably, in the mentioned book written by AUSTRIAN. So, it is not invented. And as a matter of fact, how many murders, crimes etc. do you think happen in some obscure places and do not get into limelight? The treatment of Serbian side was like that - noone cared about crimes on Serbs. This is just one in a very, very long list of examples. And yet, if you search a bit, you will find plenty of evidence - even from western sources, even from ICTY, about crimes against Serbs that never did and never will get a line in your beloved and trusted Times magazine. Pirkovank 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- What in the world does science have to do with this? (Speaking of flawed reasoning.) That doesn't compare to a widely reported conflict such as this one. You're trying to tell me that the Times had 12 reports out of Zadar in 1991 alone, but somehow missed the bombing of 116 cafés?? And Time Magazine? (These are the only sources I can find that archive their news back to 1991 for free...) I realize these are English sources, but 116 cafés?? It's very difficult for me to swallow that this would have been missed by EVERYONE except by Serbian sources. When I strongly outgoogle any sources for this, that's real cause for concern, and the rampant sock/meatpuppetry on this page really doesn't help my opinion of this. Grandmasterka 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Obradović Goran (talk 11:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment --- It's been repeatedly asserted that the phrase "Dalmatian kristallnacht" shows multiple Google hits. This is correct, if "multiple" means five. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- There are 7 listed hits in your link, and 21 if you include all (the number is so 21 with your search, including ommited ones). You should also try the Serbo-Croatian version. In any case, there are multiple sources, independent, and you can see that the issue exists, even if it is a bit obscure in English. The obscurity of an issue and the fact that there are more material offline than online are no reason for exclusion. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if there is anything sourced and salvageable it should be merged with appropriate other articles. If it's kept, the name Kristallnacht has to be changed it's POV, anachronistic and in if this Serbian-Croatian event is known in English at all it's not by a German name. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- NPOVize and Rename to whatever. I'm pretty sure that the events took place, but their presentation in the article is quite problematic. I believe that sources exist and can be found, yet the very title is inadequate and an obvious neologism. Duja 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, and I'd add two further comments. We should be very cautious about treating as facts news reports from either Serbia or Croatia during this period, given the degree to which both countries' media were under state control and used as propaganda outlets. I'd definitely be happier if we could verify this event using non-Yugoslavian sources, e.g. State Department Human Rights reports or Human Rights Watch reports. Also, I agree entirely that the article should be rewritten - it's very non-NPOV and I think it's particularly objectionable that it should use the term "Kristallnacht" as a synonym for "pogrom". It's plain propaganda and cheapens the memory of the original Kristallnacht. -- ChrisO 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. The events which took place in Srebrenica are called "genocide" - you might, and in fact people - Jews and other - as well say that this cheapens the memory of the original Holocaust. But that was not reason for consideration here. In fact, the naming convention is pretty clear - these aspects ARE NOT to be considered when naming an article. They are pretty precise as to how to proceed when choosing a name, having alternatives (and we do not have that even - Zadar Kristallnacht was inferior to Dalmatian Kristallnacht as first had almost no references, and second is how it was called IN ENGLISH). NPOV-ing is a separate issue. Let me just say that what ChrisO said about Serbian/Croatian media is absolutely not true. Neither media in Croatia, neither in Serbia, were ALL STATE CONTROLLED - thats nonsense, though it is a prejudice in which many westerners who do not understand these issues believe. In fact, in Serbia under Milosevic press was relatively free, only the MAIN RTS was state controled. A lot of criticisms and attacks on Milosevic were present in the media. The same holds for Croatia - Feral Tribune is one notable example. Also, we should not trust BBC or CNN as they in fact have bias, and it is comparable to the bias of what you call state media in Serbia/Croatia at the time - believe me, I was surprised to discover how much manipulation there is myself. Also, wiki policies make it plain that one should not judge, but report about ALL things in NPOV way. That dominant western media were more/less interested in something is really not an issue here - there are events called Dalmatian Kristallnacht, they deserve an article, and all other issues can be solved IN THE ARTICLE within the guidelines of NPOV policies. Policies for NPOV and naming exist precisely to give guidelines in cases like this. However, this is obviously a separate issue - there does not seem to be any concensus here, Serbian contributors are for Keeping and Croatians are for deleting, that should be clear - so per policy, there is no concensus, the article stays, but of course, it can be NPOV-ed like any other article. And there are much worse examples of POV in wiki present then this. Pirkovank 01:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- second is how it was called IN ENGLISH -- by whom? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- By professional translators at ICTY - they have translated 'Dalmatinska kristalna noc' in such a way. By people who wrote other articles, that are quoted and can be found on Internet. Obviously, Kristallnacht is a German word, used in English to refer to a particular event, and Dalmatian Kristallnacht is a name derived from this. That is why translators have used this translation. Pirkovank 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- second is how it was called IN ENGLISH -- by whom? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. The events which took place in Srebrenica are called "genocide" - you might, and in fact people - Jews and other - as well say that this cheapens the memory of the original Holocaust. But that was not reason for consideration here. In fact, the naming convention is pretty clear - these aspects ARE NOT to be considered when naming an article. They are pretty precise as to how to proceed when choosing a name, having alternatives (and we do not have that even - Zadar Kristallnacht was inferior to Dalmatian Kristallnacht as first had almost no references, and second is how it was called IN ENGLISH). NPOV-ing is a separate issue. Let me just say that what ChrisO said about Serbian/Croatian media is absolutely not true. Neither media in Croatia, neither in Serbia, were ALL STATE CONTROLLED - thats nonsense, though it is a prejudice in which many westerners who do not understand these issues believe. In fact, in Serbia under Milosevic press was relatively free, only the MAIN RTS was state controled. A lot of criticisms and attacks on Milosevic were present in the media. The same holds for Croatia - Feral Tribune is one notable example. Also, we should not trust BBC or CNN as they in fact have bias, and it is comparable to the bias of what you call state media in Serbia/Croatia at the time - believe me, I was surprised to discover how much manipulation there is myself. Also, wiki policies make it plain that one should not judge, but report about ALL things in NPOV way. That dominant western media were more/less interested in something is really not an issue here - there are events called Dalmatian Kristallnacht, they deserve an article, and all other issues can be solved IN THE ARTICLE within the guidelines of NPOV policies. Policies for NPOV and naming exist precisely to give guidelines in cases like this. However, this is obviously a separate issue - there does not seem to be any concensus here, Serbian contributors are for Keeping and Croatians are for deleting, that should be clear - so per policy, there is no concensus, the article stays, but of course, it can be NPOV-ed like any other article. And there are much worse examples of POV in wiki present then this. Pirkovank 01:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Once, again, Slobodan Milosevic didn't give the name to the incident, he was not the first one that called the incident in that way. He just accepted the name like everyone else. By saying that the word was solely translated from something Milosevic said, Jpgordon, shows just how much you know nothing about this topic. Let's get some actual historians in here. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- The cite your verifiable sources. Show us exactly where the English/German hybrid phrase "Dalmatian Kristallnacht" is used. Please. That could end this whole thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The incident got it's name from the media. Just like Milosevic is oftenly called "The Butcher of the Balkans" in Western media, the events in 1991 in Dalmacija are called "Dalmatian Kristallnacht". I don't see what's the big deal over the name. If you find me an edition of any political newspaper (including the New York Times) from the time when the incident happened, I'll show you where it says " Dalmatian Kristallnacht", sadly I don't save newspapers that long, so... Jp, read the article carefully, and if you still think it sounds nothing like the Kristallnacht in Germany, feel free to continue discussing it. Also, read the new text I just posted. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- In other words you are unable to cite verifiable sources giving legitimacy to the nomenclature. Thanks, that's all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I'd also like to ask you if you ever heard of a different name for the incident? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP-- evey argumen for deletion I have seen here is a harangue about "Serbian propaganda," while, at the same time, no facts are given to argument the deletion. The sources listed and the google results definitely warrant an article - Ketz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ketzman (talk • contribs).
- Weak keep on probation. This is one of these AFDs where most of those that might have a clue about the topic also seem to bring their POV to the table. On the face of it, though, this does seem to be a much talked-about (non-?)event, and is probably notable either as a genuine atrocity or as a Reichstagsbrand-style propaganda piece, depending on whom you believe. So keep for now and present sources for both points of view. Sandstein 09:02, 1 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 delete as copyvio - Liberatore(T) 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Swami Muktanandaji
Non-notable religious figure with 40 Google hits. Delete and redirect to Muktananda. Contested PROD, so I'm not just doing it myself. Sandstein 06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable person, changing my vote to no vote as there seems to be some confusion about the article as mentioned below by Henning Makholm--TBC
??? ??? ??? 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Confused. Muktananda claims to be about one Swami Muktananda (who, with quotes, gets 89,000 google hits), but Swami Muktananda redirects to Swami Muktanandaji. The two articles cannot be about the same person; they give quite different vital stats. Perhaps Move all to Talk:Muktananda and slap on an {{expert}} tag? Henning Makholm 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is possible that the
- Delete An image-search [30] indicates that the two Muktananda's are different. ImpuMozhi 19:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain on this one, as I have never heard of this guy. I have been bold and fixed the redirect from Swami Muktananda to point to Muktananda. I've heard of him. Fan1967 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 12:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
kingboyk 12:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable person (more like a vanity article, in fact). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Article is a copyvio from here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:33, 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 Deleted by Xezbeth with summary of (linkspam). -- JLaTondre 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ass Parade
Advertising. Pure and simple.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. --lightdarkness (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good for a chuckle, but delete per nom.Bjones 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Win777 17:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as to all three. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as everyone above, totally ad. They even had a price at the bottom! :-) --Deville (Talk) 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete um... why wasn't this prodded? Sparsefarce 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all as embarassing adcruft. Deizio 16:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, blatant advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ass parade
- 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 - Liberatore(T) 16:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Charby The Vampirate
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
Prod tag was removed; non-notable webcomic (article itself admits that it's "relatively unknown in the webcomic community") OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For our inclusion guidelines for web sites, including webcomics, see WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and google. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- This comic should not be deleted. Wikipedia has retained Elijah and Azuu on that bases that it is the #1 strip style comic on Drunk Duck. DD has two catagories for comics strips and graphic novels. Since Charby is the #1 Graphic Novel on DD, and even more popular then Elijah and Azuu, it should logically also be retained. -EEN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.75.124.5 (talk • contribs).
- I agree witht the above. This comic is entertaining, and has wonderful art, but due to the vastness of the archives, numerous people ask the same questions over and over on the site. A wiki will solve this problem. People can instead of asking a question, first check the Wiki, and THEN ask the question. I don't understand why this has been put up for deletion. -Milknut —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.135.216 (talk • contribs).
- CTV is an incredibly popular comic, especially taking into consideration the drop on DD readership after the crash. The plot is complicated enough with the dozens of characters and subplots to merit a reference. --Hazgarn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hazgarn (talk • contribs).
- Keep Reasonably written and informative. Despite the author specifically disliking promotion, it has easily made it to the most read of all drunk-duck story-based webcomics. Also, isn't there a little more to whether something is encyclopedic than mere number of google hits? It is relatively unknown, but rabidly followed by those who have found it. It is, in my opinion, an interesting anomaly of sorts and quite at home with having a wikipedia article.
Not to mention that with the sheer number of secondary characters, many people following the webcomic would be very grateful for this article's continued existance. Mister cope 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and when googling it is easy to forget that Charby the Vampirate will, unlike, say, Secret of Mana Theatre, turn up only results SPECIFICALLY about charby the vampirate, as Charby is a rather uncommon name, and vampirate is a compound word if not coined by the author, certainly very far from common. To get a more fair comparison to other, aparently acceptably noteworth webcomics, you should search for the entire phrase. For example, "Charby the Vampirate" returns just over 600 pages. "Secret of Mana Theatre" returns a masssive 630, and depending on whether you search for "TIN The Incompetent Ninja" or simply "The Incompetant Ninja", you get either a colossul 220, or up to an incomprehensible entire 770 pages. And the latter's article barely qualifies as a stub!. Keep Mister cope 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Charby is a very well-detailed comic, and has become very popular. It is definitely worthy of a page. --Andsean 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC) -Just because the article says that it's "relatively unknown in the webcomic community" doesn't mean that it's not worthy of a wikiedia page. If you keep this page it will help improve CTV's popularity. I also find that CTV is an incredibly detailed comic and has many devoted fans (check the forums) and yes it even has it's own forum! Amelius is and incredibly talented person and mannages to maintain CTV while also working on Unlife is Unfair, so I therefore believe that the CTV wiki entry should NOT be deleted. ~Kioushan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.199.86.187 (talk • contribs).
When compared to other comics it can be seen that Charby is above average in plot development, artistic quality, and character organization. Though this is largely a matter of opinion, many have proclaimed that Charby is their favorite. The comic updates regularly as promised and Amelius is more than willing to communicate with her fan base, a quality that’s not all to common with artists of her caliber that will ensure her comics growth. Charby also has a relatively active and growing fan forum demonstrating the growing potential of this comic and need for a Wiki reference.Daggertooth 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There isn't any reason I can see to get rid of this entry, the subject is (as stated previously) large and features a lot of points of interest that a wiki entry would be useful to keep track of. The claim that it's relativly unkown should not be considered a prominant enough complaint to warrant deletion. This is a popular comic, and there are many lesser known tv-series/games/comics/people featured on wikipedia. I had thought the point of this site was to inform. Not just to inform on the overly popular subjets. --SeanJKS
Keep. Despise the slight error in Cyril bio (he wasn't killed), I beleive this should stay up. Charby the Vampirate is a good enough comic to deserve a wiki page, and, despise the authors modest personality, needs a little more publication. I'm sure her loyal fans (which are many) would love to see this page stay.
- Weak keep It is at the top of one of Drunk Duck's list, which is comparable to Gods of Arr-Kelaan and Elijah and Azuu. However, neither of these has been AfDed yet, so I don't know if that actually means anything. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP There is no valid reason to delete this entry as outlined in the Wikipedia Deletion Policy. The Article is well written for covering the amount of information it is covering. The comic is increadibly popular, one of the most popular comics on Drunk Duck, it's popularity should not be an issue. This article on "Charby the Vampirate" should be kept.--Neilak20
- Keep This webcomic has fulfilled all the requirements that have been put forth. it is a perfectly stable comic with a rigorous update schedule, it's drawn by a hard-working artist, and it has a very valuable and (obviously) very loyal fanbase. There are many other webcomics listed on this site and there has been no viable argument for its deletion other than mentioning the artists own distaste for self-promotion. As this article was not even published by said author, this argument is obsolete. --~SilverWolf~
- Strong Delete - I came across this checking out the Whatlinkshere from Elijah and Azuu, which has been on my watchlist for a while pending an AFD. I was doing research on the thing before possibly AFDing the thing. Drunk Duck itself has an Alexa rank of over 100,000. Drunkduck is described in its article as being a small community, if that is correct, then the community reading Charby the Vampire is going to be even smaller. Also influenced to vote delete based on Kioushan's first few sentences above. - Hahnchen 17:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Well, where do I begin. Charby the Vampirate is an incredibly origional comic, that has more readers than any other comic on the prestigious site, DrunkDuck.com. I can understand why you wouldn't want to have an article about an "unpopular" webcomic, but this is far from upopular. Since the author is not doing this for personal gain, because she does not like promoting, I think this will be a valuble recourse for many Charby fans' needs. I think we should keep this Wiki article here. - Shippo no Neko 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: I see no compelling reason to delete. Hanchen, you would make a similar argument even if it was hosted on Comic Genesis. You know Alexa is virtually useless. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- As useless as you think Alexa is, Comic Genesis obviously generates a lot more traffic than DrunkDuck does. I had a look around drunkduck, it's a tiny community, there's only 1000 people in their forums. I'm sure that's not a great indicator of how popular the drunk duck community is, but there are less members there than the forums of a singluar unreleased mod for Half-Life 2. - Hahnchen 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- DD just crashed about 2 or three months ago and was until recently only supporting a few new fuctions as it was recoded with new options. 1000 people re-joining a forum in that short a time span isn't anything to scoff at. Before the crash they had a much larger member list in the multiple thousands.
- As useless as you think Alexa is, Comic Genesis obviously generates a lot more traffic than DrunkDuck does. I had a look around drunkduck, it's a tiny community, there's only 1000 people in their forums. I'm sure that's not a great indicator of how popular the drunk duck community is, but there are less members there than the forums of a singluar unreleased mod for Half-Life 2. - Hahnchen 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does not appear to have any reliable sources, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Point of Observation - Being the Top comic on DD was enough to get Count Your Sheep into Keenspot which I most will agree is no small feat. That would suggest that top DD position is something of a notable acomplishment unto itself and that DD has some notworthy standing in the comic community even if it isn't the number one comic hosting site. Charby did win several of Drunk Duck's Evil Empire awards before DD crashed and erased everything on that site. Lastly its 600+ issue full color archive is an impressive accomplishment by anyone's standards and that Charby at least has some impressive staying power with fans that most other comics lack. Charby and its characters are easily more popular then several obscure villians from main stream comics which have somehow gotten their own wiki entry despite extream obscurity and unpopularity mearly by the association with a large name publisher.
- 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. -Splashtalk 00:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copwatch
Non-notable civic organization. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Catherine breillat 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I heard about this organization offline. here is an image mentioning the Austin branch. I can easily see someone seeing a listing for their local copwatch meeting and searching here. I think the article probably needs cleanup though. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 03:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems quite a lot of people are involved in this organization. JeffBurdges 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, collectively notable organizations. -Sean Curtin 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per gtrmp/jeffburdges.Tombride 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not really an organization, but is still notable. It's going on everywhere. Canaen 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. notable group. Peter G Werner 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable phenomenon (not really a single organization). There are chapters in several US cities and Copwatch is regularly in the news in the US. If people see a story about Copwatch, this should be a good place for them to learn about it. Definitely needs cleanup and expansion.Mycota 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I have seen them on various indymedia sources and even freespeech tv, so I think they are fairly notable. The Ungovernable Force 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks to be an almost nationwide organization. Many google hits and many recent google news hits [51]. Nom makes no case at all for deletion, although I would thank him for taking the trouble to spell out NN. Given Copwatch's importance, uniqueness and reach and the media attention, it would seem that this is exactly the kind of page we need here. -- JJay 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I love articles that reference their own websites, love to see them deleted since they don't belong here. Mike (T C)
05:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that there is no third party references, ie news papers etc. Mike (T C) 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a few. Feel free to add more since there are many hundreds of articles on this group. Of course, the article as it stands is already better referenced than such articles as Police, gun or justice- none of which have any references. Perhaps those articles should be deleted. -- JJay 22:12, 30 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 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shihan Mihiranga
He's not a musician yet..He is just a kid who particpated in a contest which he didnt even win (reality tv show).One day if he becomes a great musician ,then his details should be included..as of now this should be deleted..This is madness.. lol
non notable musician from Sri Lanka, maybe? Adam (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete, (racism removed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FLASHY FUNKMAN (talk • contribs).
- This artist is extremely popular in Sri Lanka, and therefore this article should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.222.10.58 (talk • contribs).
- Do not delete this page. This guy is becoming extremly popular in Sri Lanka and will release an album of his own very soon.
-
- Yah, don't delete.. This is a super guy.. & he'll be a important character
- Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell. If you want him to stay, you need to read that and explain how he satisfies it. JoshuaZ 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont think that this should be deleted. Probably it's reuested by someone for his personnal reasons. This goes for all other articals under sirasa super star topic
- Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC, based on what's in the article and from what I can find. JoshuaZ is right: if he does meet it, I can't see it. (P.S.: Sock puppetry does not help. Fixing the article does.)--Kinu t/c 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does Not meet WP:Music. This is probably created by an adoring fan. However it is essential to clean up or delete the article.
- Delete per Kinu. Sandstein 09:20, 1 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 keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eric L. Haney
article created by User:Striver as a part of his campaign of soapboxing his conspiracy non-sense.
- delete as strivercruft --Striver 23:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I completed this AFD since it didn't get linked here, but I'm quite puzzled by it! Esquizombi 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Amazon lists his book [54] at #1278, which would seem fairly notable. Fan1967 00:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think he's trying to use reverse-psychology, and it's working. Weak Keep per Amazon ranking. Eivindt@c 01:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I'm a fan of his show, actually, but I think the amazon link is a better account of notability. I suspect JD hacked into Striver's account ;-) --Mmx1 02:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge into The Unit unless expanded to talk about him more. kotepho 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)- Keep Georgewilliamherbert does good work. kotepho 04:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as WP:POINT nom by Striver. Esquizombi 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Striver breaking with WP:POINT.--Jersey Devil 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - besides being a noteable author, he also helped to found the modern-day Delta Force unit. Noteworthy in my book! —akghetto talk 09:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems notable, but equally confused as to why User:Striver created the article with an AfD tag, then voted to delete. Concerned perhaps he is trying to make a point regarding WP's tolerance for certain articles??? --mtz206 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Striver left the following note on my talk page which is relevant to this AfD --mtz206 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I plan to expand the article, but i know it will be afd if i do that, so i afd'd it without the controversial stuff, so people can consentrate on the guys notability, and after that, when it is established that he is not non-notable, then i can expand on him. Maybe not the best thing to do, i got a bit angry at geting perfectly notable articles deleted only since people cant tolerate views they dont share, even thogh they fullfill the Wikipedia criteria. For a recent example, just see my Sheen-Alex article, it fullfills all wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but its geting deleted.--Striver 15:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*Delete not notable. No vote either way. Striver again defies logic with this bizarre action and it is a violation of WP:POINT...don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, Striver.--MONGO 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Now everyone can see why i get frustrated, the guy just votes procedural deleted on anyting, whitout even bothering to chek the facts. And he is not the only one. --Striver 12:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This is clearly a WP:POINT violation, but Haney is clearly notable as well. Shame on you, Striver. And you too, Mongo, for not doing your homework. Georgewilliamherbert 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have added a {{cleanup}} tag and considerable content in the last few hours. This is no longer a stub article. Georgewilliamherbert 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with both admonitions by Georgewilliamherbert, although Striver's transgression is much more serious than MONGO's. As for the merits: I don't know whether Haney's role in the founding and operation of Delta Force was extensive enough to make him notable on that basis; is he an American Otto Skorzeny? In any event, he's the author of a serious nonfiction book, one that has a high Amazon rank, has already been translated into at least two other languages, and has reached many more people through its transformation into a TV series. JamesMLane t c 07:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bizarro use of WP:POINT -- Samir
(the scope) 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC) - Closing comment: Striver, this has been a magnificent waste of time. See my comment in your talk page. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:00, 30 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.
