Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 19
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] February 19
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian Lamo ·· 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moinho da fonte
From WP:PNT, untranslated for two weeks. Entry from there follow. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Get it off my English encyclopedia, even it it's translated --Ruby 00:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. My first reaction was "hahahaha". ITS ISN'T EVeN IN ENGLISH!!! --Jay(Reply) 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - use db-notenglish tag. --OscarTheCattalk
00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: {{db-notenglish}} only applies to pages that exist in other wikimedia projects, such as pages that were cut and pasted from another language wikipedia without translation. There's no speedy deletion criteria for articles that are in another language, they'll get afd'd unless they fall in some other csd. - Bobet 01:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It appears to be a real article about a real place (not a story). But it should be deleted if left untranslated. Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- delelete Unfortunatelly... --CyclePat 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Terence Ong 03:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- delete Puff piece. This "A população subdivide-se na minha familia e nos meus vizinhos naturais" means "The population is divided between my family and my fellow Portuguese neighbors." Jim62sch 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Wow. It's... NOT IN ENGLISH!--SeanMcG 04:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian Lamo ·· 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Save Our Animals
Original research. Also reads like a high school essay. And appears to be a copyvio OscarTheCattalk 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Read the first few sentences of the "article." It's the epitome of why WP:NFT exists. --Kinu t/c 01:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No footprint on Alexa --Ruby 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- comment: verify: I wonder if this is just a case of verifiability... again! In that case add the verify unsourced template and see you later.--CyclePat 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Only 7 websites link to there website [2] (per google). Seems like a nn-org to me. ---J.Smith
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Jim62sch 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Avery W. Krouse 05:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, improper nom, WP:SNOW Adrian Lamo ·· 02:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Junior Ioane
who? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs).
- Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Subject is clearly encyclopedic. Chick Bowen 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment player is referenced on nfl.com site [3], have updated article accordingly. Unsure whether this means worthy of a keep (this ain't proper football :-) ). --OscarTheCattalk 00:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Another athlete article that is destined to be kept --Ruby 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- EXTRA STRONG SPEEDY KEEP nominator of AfD is a vandal, nuff said. Moe ε 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, having a hard time assuming good faith on this nom. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as short article lacking context and non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pierce Mathwig
Delete:nn bio. But raised a smile! JackyR 00:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete yup, non-notable. Would suggest a speedy db-bio. --OscarTheCattalk 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Per nom. I question even if it qualifies as a bio, but still, delete. --Jay(Reply) 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - CSD A7, tagged as such. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: A7. Notability not asserted, and it's probably non-existent anyway. --Kinu t/c 01:15, 19 February 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. Ifnord 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ahmad Treaudo
who —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs).
- Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. AfD is not for expansion. Chick Bowen 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable as article currently stands. --OscarTheCattalk 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is simply a stub. As a side note, I find questionable the recent unsigned, unreasoned AfD postings. --Jay(Reply) 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment All athlete articles get kept, as surely as all school ones do --Ruby 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. 20,000 Google hits on a member of the Atlanta Falcons team. It's a valid stub and satisfies WP:V. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- EXTRA STRONG SPEEDY KEEP nominator of AfD is a vandal, nuff said. Moe ε 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, would be speedy keep but a good-faith vote to delete has been made. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable gridiron player. Would have been speedy keep if not for good faith delete vote. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Jim62sch 04:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong 04:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Siva1979Talk to me 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. He's on the practice squad, not the team. Is this a relaxation of notability standards? Is he the athletic world's non-notable equivalent of an understudy who never gets onstage? Monicasdude 16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Very weak keep he is a memember of the practice squad of the team, still not in the team yet, Most players who are in the practice squads don't normally go higher and normally get released, clearly bad timing for the AFD, possible delete later if he gets cut and don't play a pro game. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep on the verge of NN. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --James 01:58, 24 February 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. Ifnord 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kurt Wise
Noted only for being a creationist and for teaching at a notable college --Ruby 01:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete insufficiently notable although he gets a few Google Scholar hits for Baraminology and some 100 Ghits for same. Dlyons493 Talk 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: If 'he' were to try and suppress my views I would holler like hell ( whoops ... A Freudian slip there!!) So why should I want to suppress his?--Aspro 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't want to supress his views, I want a WP article about a non-notable teacher to go away. --Ruby 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. He is notable enough for Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world's most prominent evolutionary theorist, to write an article about him and his views. (See the link in the article.) dbtfztalk 01:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - the Dawkins article does it. -- Jonel | Speak 03:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Jim62sch 04:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable young earth creationist, and highly notable for actually having a relevant degree. JoshuaZ 05:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Unusual story of a creationist with a background in paleontology -- I think he's notable as a result, especially if he's written about by evolutionists. -- Samir ∙ TC
08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC) - Keep per Samir. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per most other keep comments. Monicasdude 16:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Notable in that many anti-creationists question the credentials of creationists. Here's one with a degree in science from a prestigious university. Logophile 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep He's the only person to earn a Ph.D. under Steven Jay Gould and still believe in a young age for creation. Just because he does not covet the spotlight does not make him and his accomplishments not notable.
- 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. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Stanek
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
- See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist for Stanek's books
I don't see the sense in arguing over this page. Let's delete it, and move on.
I propose deleting Robert Stanek page to end controversy, and move on to other pages. My vote to delete the rest of the Robert Stanek pages as well. Eakers4 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete it all, and lets move on to more important stuff. Eakers4 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete all I agree. It's not worth fighting over. It is a shame wikipedia seemed to be a cool place, but everyone's so hateful. Next thing you know they'll be yanking the Chris Paolini pages. Soulrunner 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't that kind of a non-sequitur? What's the connection? Has anyone proposed yanking the Chris Paolini pages? —rodii 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nomination and previous AfD held today. Moe ε 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep guy is himself notable, his [FICTION] books are not. He has worked for 2 major publications and has clearly made a name for himself as an astroturfer. ALKIVAR™
01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is where I get ambivalent. On the one hand, he's not a major writer, as far as can be determined. On the other hand... at least three admins here have said "oh, him" or words to that effect, which does suggest he's got at least some recognition... Shimgray | talk | 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I strongly suspect that the user nominating this article for deletion is a Robert Stanek sock, as is Soulrunner. Now that the Ansible controversy is mentioned on the page, there is a reason to keep it. Stanek may not be notable for his fantasy novels, but he is notable for his suspected shenanigans. Zora 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar. This person has apparently done something real (ie, contributed to the shelf on the computer bookstore that will, in immortal words of _why, crush us all one day) besides being just loud and notorious. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- keep and verify: This process appear to be "out of process". Just put a verify sign up and come back in a couple days. --CyclePat 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nomination. If it stops the bickering. Jnb27 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Zora. Like it or not, Stanek is notable for the allegations of sockpuppetry in marketing his works, whether they are true or not (he said carefully). —rodii 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it Per nomination and AfD. What's going on here is it not right. It would seem there are better things to do with your time. Jnb27 02:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and verify. There's almost certainly something funny about this AfD. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Why wasn't this deleted already? 4.230.105.246 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination and previous AfD held today for Ruin Mist. Enough already with the personal attacks. 172.164.196.220 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, with inclusion of the Ansible controversy and history on Amazon.com and Usenet. It's Interesting that those who created the page and the astroturf are now calling for its deletion. He and/or his fans have made their bed, now they're going to have to lie in it. 69.213.249.15 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Grammar edit 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Delete it. 69.213.249.15 should be banned already, along with the rest of them. 165.247.191.244 04:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Enuf already Bcbuff 04:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User has 4 edits total to Wikipedia, counting this --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Tired of seeing it. Agreed 69.213.249.15 should be banned along with 69.216.236.40 at the least. This kind of crap shouldn't go on at wikipedia. 172.156.172.88 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Inquiry I should be honored, I guess... Mind enlightening me as to just exactly what I've done to merit being banned? Please be specific, and cite exact transgressions. 69.213.249.15 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Can someone help me out here? Recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross (US) would surely be notable enough to keep but I can't see him at Distinguished Flying Cross Society - Roll of Honour what am I missing? Dlyons493 Talk 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not being on the dfcsociety.org web site isn't definitive - it does require that you be in the society to be listed there, and there is a fee for membership. As proud as he seems to be of the award, though (since it seems to be mentioned prominantly in every bio I've seen), you'd think he'd be a member. There is a list available from another group of DFC recipients, but it requires proprietary PC-Only software to access. Someone on a PC might want to check it out. It's at [6] 69.213.249.15 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the lot! All the controversy is crap and shouldn't be included at any rate. Deepd 04:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User has 5 edits total to Wikipedia, counting this --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ansible scruff should be removed at any rate 172.147.251.178 05:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Laugh. This is one of the funniest, oddest AfDs in a while. rodii 05:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Irrelevant Napols 05:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User's first edit to Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- As I stated in the AFD for Ruin Mist, Stanek is an oddment. Stanek is infamous throughout science fiction publishing. What tends to happen is that a completely non-notable book is put out in the Stanek name, and then hundreds, if not thousands, of positive reviews begin to flood web-based reviews websites. Oddly, these reviews are all identical. Now, I'm not saying that Stanek himself has anything to do with these reviews, any more than I'm saying that the sudden flurry of Stanek-related articles on Wikipedia are anything to do with him personally, but the long arm of coincidence stretches only so far. Ironically, if this article is kept, it should be for those very reasons, but should be rewitten to reflect the fact that his only "fame" is through this astonishing spamming campaign, for which he (or someone who is a big fan of his) has far more talent than he does for writing fiction. In some areas of fandom, the verb "to stanek" is starting to mean "to overhype junk writing ("e.g., to say "Tis Perry Rhodan book is brilliant" would be to stanek). If you're looking for some references for all this, BTW, I can proffer [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]...
overall, I'd favour a delete, thoughOn second thoughts, the gratuitous self-promotion is probably worthy of an article - but if it is kept, it may need serious edit-protecting to stop the Stanek supporter(s) from bowdlerising it. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (vote reconsidered and changed Grutness...wha? 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)) - Keep as per Alkivar. Capitalistroadster 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - so many anons wanting it gone makes it rater suspect. Note to other admins: If this keeps on getting keeps from real users we should speedy keep it. gren グレン 09:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why is it that content disputes get dragged into AfDs? The article is a mess at the moment, so fix it. The subject of this article seems to me to be notable, so what about the article is against the policy? Batmanand 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep at least for now. Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Zora. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable online jackass/thug. Monicasdude 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a biography on a non-notable author for a vanity press who's too dumb to know that Slavic languages are not Romance languages. Batmanand, if you feel so strongly that it needs kept, I suggest you try to fix it. BrianGCrawfordMA 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the article exactly as it is, and keep it protected. ergot 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in a form that Stanek will hate. The more he hates it, the better the article will be doing its job of documenting a man whose vanity exceeds even that of a certain Southern Baptist preacher. Guy 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until at least this sock-puppetry subsides. Amcfreely 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, with a laugh at this AFD... I will just pop in to whoever closes this that anon's votes dont count and the users in single-digit edits probably shouldn't, either. -AKMask 01:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable wannabe and obvious astroturfer. Book articles are probably fancruft though. Haikupoet 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This author's fame (or perhaps infamy) deserves note, if only as consumer protection. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable guy. This is a rather funny AfD, with anons telling us that we should "delete it, and move on", and that they're "tired of seeing it". You're obviously not tired of telling us about it. Grandmasterka 08:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable in a bad way, but still notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree notable for being offensive, but that's still notable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in current form--aka a way Stanek won't like. I've been lurking around observing the bruhaha over Stanek for awhile now and it seems to me he has become notable for his astroturfing and trickery, if not for any of his writing. ArrowHead 00:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no one is entitled to a controversy-free article. Carlossuarez46 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Fiction shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 5/5/2005, 5/27/2005, and 6/2/2005.
-
- A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 7/1/2005, 6/2/2005, 5/27/2005, and 5/5/2005.
- A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Kids shows the books one or more of on the bestseller list on 6/24/2005, and 6/23/2005.
- A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Mystery shows one or more of on the bestseller list on 9/2/2005. 4.154.208.199 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- LAUGH Let's see, that's on his publisher's web site? Just how difficult is it to be on your publisher's best seller list when you're the only author they publish? Synthfilker 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment What is being referred to is RSS newsfeed which requires a subscription to the feed. I archived the feeds referenced above: 1. Any one can subscribe to a feed and get archives. 4.154.212.74 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- RSS newsfeed from what?? Amazon? Stanek? The NYT? My mom? rodii 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like it's the feeds at Audible. So this is audio books. rodii 19:49, 23 February 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. Shanel 01:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Thousand Eyes
Unverifiable offshoot of AfD candidate The Leisure Coffee. Album by a group with exactly zero relevant Google hits. (of the four hits for "the leisure coffee", all are about ... well, coffee.) No vote. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. 5 google hits for "The Leisure Coffee" none of which are relevant.
Monkeyman 02:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) - keep for now Déja vu. But in 10 days delete if no source is added. I also think it is good faith to put the verify sign up first. (new article, giving new editor time to find his way) --CyclePat 02:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I've contacted the author on their talk page. They'll have ample time to look into this while this AfD runs its course :) . Adrian Lamo ·· 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. It's bogus. PJM 04:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Kinu t/c 06:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. feydey 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Monkeyman --Ruby 18:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 19:57, 22 February 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 leaning towards delete. With the sockpuppetry involved, perhaps a relisting would be useful later on. - ulayiti (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Michael Savage neologisms
- A list of offensive slurs. Intrinsically not encyclopedic. Delete.-Mr Adequate 07:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Slurs? No way . . . Keep Equinox137 09:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is encyclopedic because it's very relevant as part of his radio show. Savage references them all the time. In fact, he's even in the process of releasing a new book which labels each personality with a disparaging (most anyway) name. Another thing...saying that they're "offensive slurs" is YOUR POV. Most of the people who listen to Savage dont think they're offensive even when he's putting down someone they like.Keep—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.35.15.107 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 February 2006.
- Keep—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.226.239.213 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 February 2006.
- Smerge to Michael Savage (commentator) WP:WINAD Schizombie 09:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC) I'll add that the title of the page doesn't seem accurate - is "neologism" usually applied to nicknames? Most of the stuff on the page is punning nicknames, not new words. If the page survives on its own, and I really don't think it should, it needs a lot more context. When Savage uses these nicknames, how does he use them? Does he say something like "Rush Limbaugh, or as I like to call him, Hush Bimbo" or does he say the nickname without ever using the person's real name at all? Also, some of the names seem to indicate faults he finds in the person, but others don't convey any obvious meaning at all. What does calling Sean Hannity "Harvey Wallbanger" mean? That Hannity uses his fists a lot? That he drinks a lot? If his fans want to get really encyclopedic, they'd try to: (1) establish when the name was first used (2) what the name means (if not original research), (3) document whether the name was used more than once, and if so how often (otherwise definitely not notable), (4) whether the use of the name has spread beyond his fans (otherwise hardly notable), and so on. Schizombie 05:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Merge/Keep or WikiQuote. Arbustoo 09:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wikiquote just like the sayings of that guy on Sealab 2021 --Ruby 14:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or Delete Just because some guy makes a fool of himself on the radio doesn't mean we need a list of his collected nonsensical utterings. TVXPert 15:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Who is this dumbass and why would anyone want to listen to him? Non-notable, not excyclopedic, indiscriminate, blah, blah, blah. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - a list of neologisms falls under deletion policy. Is this advertising for is upcoming book? —ERcheck @ 16:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Merge (with redirect for GFDL compliance) to Michael Savage (commentator) any for which a reliable outside source that indicates that they've been adopted by others, received a substantial reaction, or the like.
MostNearly all of what's there probably shouldn't survive the merge Savage says lots of stuff, most of which is not itself encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (modified; it's nearly all unsourced crap and should go. A delete wouldn't lose much. CDC (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)) - Delete a list of personal attacks used by an (unfortunately) notable radio personality. Not encyclopedic. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- It should be noted that all but 2 people who said "Delete" have a personal, stated bias against Savage to begin with. One wonders if they'd protest it so much if it was someone who they like or agree with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.35.15.107 (talk • contribs). 23:51, 19 February 2006
- Delete. I hadn't heard of Savage until I read the article, so you can't include me in that list. But Wikipedia is not the place to have long lists of neologisms created by individuals, radio-show host or no. Especially since several of these "neologisms" have actually been in use for far longer (I cite [20] as one example). Grutness...wha? 01:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki per Ruby, and put a link in the main article on Savage. Batshit crazy does not equal not notable, but there's other places for lists of quotes and neologisms. Haikupoet 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There is an existing article, and this adds nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.219.217.150 (talk • contribs). 23:45, 20 February 2006
- Keep. Many of Wikipedia's entries are non-encyclopedic. This entry is funny - isn't that enough? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.227.8 (talk • contribs). 03:44, 21 February 2006
- users only 10 previous edits include 9 to the nominated article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BL Lacertae (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 February 2006.
- And this is relevant... how? Check out the entry for ad hominem argument, you idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.227.8 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 February 2006.
- its relevant because it means you have an undeclared vested interest in the article. and you should check out WP:CIV. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Undeclared vested interest"? Oh, yeah, I'm getting rich and famous off of this article. In fact, my only interest is in the entries I did NOT add. Those I added I know about. Those I didn't make me laugh. Once again, your argumant is ad hominem and illegitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.227.8 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 February 2006.
- "Undeclared vested interest" is a reference to the WP policy on AfD Etiquette "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy." Since WP is free for users, the vested interest clearly does not refer to monetary interest. I guess if people don't understand what it means it needs to be improved. Schizombie 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Undeclared vested interest"? Oh, yeah, I'm getting rich and famous off of this article. In fact, my only interest is in the entries I did NOT add. Those I added I know about. Those I didn't make me laugh. Once again, your argumant is ad hominem and illegitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.227.8 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 February 2006.
- its relevant because it means you have an undeclared vested interest in the article. and you should check out WP:CIV. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- And this is relevant... how? Check out the entry for ad hominem argument, you idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.227.8 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 February 2006.
- users only 10 previous edits include 9 to the nominated article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BL Lacertae (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 February 2006.
- Keep. It's relevant to the article, and is Wikipedia not a depositry of information? Some of us would like very much to know what Michael Savage means when he uses those neologisms, and they're funny as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.219.144.50 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 February 2006.
- WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information See above - the ones he actually coined (as opposed to having claimed to have coined) that have actually become of some note beyond his devoted listening audience (citations may be needed) can be incorporated into his own article hence my vote above. Schizombie 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure where to put this, but it's definitely not encyclopaedic. Slight merge to Michael Savage, transwiki any quotes to Wikiquote, and delete the rest. Wikipedia is a repository of information, but not an indiscriminate one. Verifiablity is questionable at best. Stifle 19:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but transwiki to wikiquote and merge with Michael Savage would be OK too. —Kenyon (t·c) 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wikiquote would depend on finding quotes in which he used the names, wouldn't it? Schizombie 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or Merge the list is a critical part of his radio show like characters in a book. Plus no more offensive than Rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot, shrub, etc..--Mrdthree 12:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- 'Keep (or Slight merge but it will end up getting split out of a large article anyway): it is encyclopedic and part of the Michael Savage persona. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- No Vote as the creator of this spin off article I refuse to vote either way, but I wanted to make my position known. ALKIVAR™ 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's like a list of jokes that have appeared on The Simpsons--fans will no doubt be amused, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (A few no doubt belong in the main Savage article.) Nareek 04:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. You guys are ridiculous, it's obvious that most members who are for deletion are simply rabid anti-Savage partisans. Because you disagree with Michael Savage you feel a collection of his famous phrases should be censored and removed from Wikipedia. I agree with the comment that his names are similiar to characters in a book. 1:46 PM, 26 February 2006 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.65.212.214 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 February 2006.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Userfied to User:Cacumer/Wiki marketing --Cyde Weys 05:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki marketing
Delete. Promotion for a website.-Mr Adequate 07:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note that Wiki mark redirects to this and should be deleted if this is deleted.-Mr Adequate 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete They can market wikimarketing on their own wiki but not this wiki --Ruby 14:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, spam. --Ashenai 15:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Article creator has on his user talk page: "If you want to know, it is aearly-alpha stage of a game I'm building. It starts on http://www.highsolution.us". That's the same external link used in the article. Delete as non-notable vanity advertisement. --cesarb 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity page. --PeR 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete so they can get their own wiki going and start making money as fast as it can be printed. Daniel Case 19:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per spam and apparent nonsense. JHMM13 (T | C)
23:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) - Delete, as ad. Superm401 - Talk 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, junk advertising -GTBacchus(talk) 00:52, 20 February 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. - ulayiti (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bruce Blausen
- Delete - Almost certainly vanity. The creator created a bunch of pages relating to Bruce Blausen in a 5 hour period last July and then disappeared. Richfife 08:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nn, vanity, agree -- Samir ∙ TC 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Arbustoo 09:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Apparently somewhat notable within his field per Google[22], but not really notable enough to be considered encyclopedic. Adrian Lamo ·· 09:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep appears to be viewed as notable in field [23] and Google search provides enough evidence to demonstrate notability as published illustrator, whatever the notability of his business may be. Monicasdude 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: The keynote speaker at that HESCA.org conference doesn't have an article - and neither does HESCA.org itself - so why would one of the early-morning warm-up acts have one? He doesn't even have a time slot to himself! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - He has a lot of secondary Google traffic on pages about other people ("Images provided by Bruce Blausen", etc) and he's listed in a lot of corporate directories, but I don't see much if any original work - Richfife 18:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WKnight94 --Ruby 22:33, 19 February 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 When anons and accounts with negligable numbers of edits are discounted, the 'vote' is in admins discresssion. Ste strength of the argument seems to be with DELETE. -Doc ask? 12:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pokèmon Kid
While this internet phenomenon has gained some popularity since its start the previous month, I think it will be forgotten by the end of February. Mind you that the notability guidelines are sort of broken when it comes to internet memes, so the 13,000 Google hits should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. Comparing it to the Star Wars kid, it seems like this one hasn't generated one single spin-off video. When voting, please don't base it upon whether you've seen it or not, but if you think people will be talking about it in a few months. Obli (Talk) 18:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. nn. Monkeyman 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Internet fad wanna-be --Ruby 20:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Good number of hits, found on notable websites and damn ass funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.54.227.145 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep We cannot delete articles based on whether or not their subjects will still be popular. We aren't psychics. The original nomination for deletion confuses me, and appears to either come out of boredom, spite, or both. It almost seems as if he/she is attempting to rule out any eligibility this video has for remaining in Wiki; how can you tell people not to consider the fact that it has 13,000 Google hits? Consider it this way: An actor or actress who appears in one or two small roles in major Hollywood films, or large roles in one or two obscure indy films, still qualifies for articles in Wiki (ie, Angela Bettis). Their "impact" is no greater than this kid. I also would like to point out that, since this article went up two days ago, nearly 2000 non-Wiki related pages have been added to his "resume" on Google. 2000 pages in three days should tell you something.TimmyBIsCool 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, found on numerous notable websites such as eBaum's, I Am Bored, Best Week Ever, IFILM, Planet Vids, Milk and Cookies, etc. Also, sites such as Planet Vid and Best Week are already beginning to draw the parallels with Numa NUma and Star Wars kid. If Pokemon Kid gets canned we might as well delete those too.23:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)~
-
- Editing above comment to add links of notable pages that favorably compare this meme to Star Wars kid:
-
- [25]
- [26]
- [27]
- [28]
- [29]
- [30]
- [31]
- And to Numa NUma:
- [32]
- [33]
- [34]
- [35]
- [36]
- Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, legit meme 216.7.248.254 16:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Considering the number of Wikipedia entries about old, highly unpopular movies or obscure equally "unpopular" scientific states, popularity is not a relevant reason for deletion. It hasn't been long enough to decide wether this fad is useful or not, either. Can you honestly say that it is useless? --Anoma lee 11:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Anoma lee. However, the accent in the title is wrong, so if this is kept move it to Pokémon Kid, which currently redirects to the misaccented current title. Stifle 16:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Any Internet meme less than a year old has no credence here, IMHO. It's ridiculous to submit an article after five nanoseconds of exposure. Denni ☯ 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely Keep. Internet Phenomenon's like this are exceptionally interesting now, and I can only imagine how interesting they will be to people looking back 5, 10, or 50 years from now. There is actual historic value to these phenomena. Cambios 23:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain, but the title should at least be spelled correctly. Ardric47 23:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, part of our internet heritage. Meme is important!RudyLucius 17:03, 24 February 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.
I enjoy homoerotic themes on its forums - P996T
- 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. - ulayiti (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kellogg Theory
Delete Basically an empty page, albeit a disputed one. San Saba 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Could it be this: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mjrm/krl_group.htm? This is the only Google reference I can find, and I can't really figure out what's going on there. NickelShoe 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- The two are separate. Your link is named due to location of their work (the Kellogg Radiation Laboratory). Monkeyman 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The two are separate. Your link is named due to location of their work (the Kellogg Radiation Laboratory).
- Keep, if we can find some verification. You really ought to check page histories before you AfD articles. This article is only practically empty because the original contributor deleted most of it himself until he could make it clearer. NickelShoe 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unverifiable, only 2 google hits, but those only mention there is a Kellogg theory, and do not provide any supporting information, as far as I know someone could have done up this whole article from scratch as original research and just slapped the Kellogg Theory name on it for respectability --Ruby 22:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Utter nonsense. This is the kind of stuff they brainwash you into cults with. Author was given a chance to source info on back on 3 December 2005 (see talk page). Monkeyman 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A theory unifying evolution and gravity? Come on... Obli (Talk) 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: No man, it's real. Just come by one of our meetings. Monkeyman 23:18, 19 February 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. Deathphoenix 21:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Least-squares estimation of linear regression coefficients
This article is worthless nonsense. Unfortunate, since obviously a lot of work went into it. I've written some comment on the article's discussion page. Michael Hardy 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I corrected a couple of things. You might want to reconsider deleting the article as it provides a proof of the formula used in the regression analysis article. Please tell me what you think. Regards, Deimos 28 13:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC).
- It now says: "In this paragraph we first show that under the Gauss-Markov assumptions, the linear regression problem can be seen as a projection. This will give us a motivation for chosing an optimization criterion from which we will then derive the expression of the least-squares estimator." That looks to me as if it's intended to prove the Gauss-Markov theorem. But the whole thing is so badly written that it will take me a while to find out if that's really the intent. If it is, it's very badly done; the proof of the Gauss-Markov theorem is much simpler than any of what's written on this page. The parts that are clearly comprehensible seem written in a way that will make it incomprehensible to anyone who does not already know this material, and they bring in things that are not relevant to that purpose. Michael Hardy 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, the aim is not to prove the Gauss-Markov theorem. I actually give a link to the Gauss-Markov theorem article in the conclusion. I really don't know how to state more plainly what this article is about than I have in its introduction:
-
- (1) give a motivation for the use of least-squares (why choose this particular criterion? What are its advantages?),
- (2) derive the expression of the least-squares estimator.
I have trouble seeing where you can see me making a proof of the Gauss-Markov theorem in either (1) or (2). It's true that the Gauss-Markov theorem gives the least-squares estimator one of its great strengths, but appart from that, I don't mention this theorem at all. As for the expression of the least-squares coefficients, it is not necessary to go through the proof of the Gauss-Markov theorem to derive it. If something is wrong with this article, I am more than happy to correct it. You say some parts are "clearly comprehensible": I am more interested in knowing what parts you think are not understandable. The article obviously makes perfect sense to me as I've written it: could you please pinpoint what you think is gibberish? Deimos 28 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The Gauss-Markov theorem is often proposed as an answer to the question "why use least squares"? You stated the assumptions of that theorem. I don't see you "making a proof of the Gauss-Markov theorem" nor a proof of anything else, yet. But when you start with the Gauss-Markov assumptions, and say your trying to motivate this method, that sounds a lot like intent to prove the Gauss-Markov theorem. As for deriving the expression of the least-squares estimator, probability theory is not involved in that at all. It's just linear algebra. Michael Hardy 01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 19:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Least-squares estimation of linear regression coefficients has 646,000 google hits, how about you guys fix the article instead of taking it to AfD to make a point? --Ruby 22:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- As I show in the article, the Gauss-Markov theorem is not the only motivation for least-squares. As can also be seen in the article, I do not use probability theory to prove the expression of the estimator. However, I do use probability theory to prove that the regression problem is equivalent to an orthogonal projection given the scalar product
![\langle X,Y\rangle:=\mathbb{E}[XY]](../../../math/2/5/e/25eea50660a1f29d81c89edfcc4868ad.png)
. This is, I think, a fairly natural way to introduce least-squares and the main aim of this article. The least-squares estimator is simply an estimation of an orthogonal projection, using the Euclidean scalar product in 
instead of the one defined for random variables. The results of the Gauss-Markov theorem is indeed the main asset of this method, but it does not provide a way to construct the estimator. I state the hypothesis and refer to the Gauss-Markov theorem because it provides both a main asset and a main limitation of the leaast-squares estimator. Deimos 28 00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- As I show in the article, the Gauss-Markov theorem is not the only motivation for least-squares. As can also be seen in the article, I do not use probability theory to prove the expression of the estimator. However, I do use probability theory to prove that the regression problem is equivalent to an orthogonal projection given the scalar product
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "the regression problem is equivalent to an orthogonal projection given the scalar product " Deimos, that is as clear a statement as I have ever seen you write. If you did the same in the article, I wouldn't complain so much. But I'm not convinced your statement above is true. We're dealing with two different inner products: the one you just mentioned here, and the one in the finite-dimensional space in which the data are found. Also, please see my latest round of comments on the article's discussion page. Michael Hardy 00:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- "the regression problem is equivalent to an orthogonal projection given the scalar product
-
-
-
- Keep. Subject is obviously notable. So fix it. Monicasdude 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I am the author: I took into account Michael Hardy's first suggestions, but since then he hasn't removed the deletion tag nor told me what he thought was wrong with it. Could anybody please tell me what I have to change/improve or remove the deletion tag? I do not want to remove this tag myself... Thanks in advance, Deimos 28 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's a natural breakout from Regression analysis. But this stuff is in every standard textbook so there shouldn't be a problem in fixing it. Dlyons493 Talk 00:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to Dlyons and Ruby: So the topic is notable. I am more aware of that fact than you are. What is in the content of the article that is not in Gauss-Markov theorem and linear regression that is worth keeping? Michael Hardy 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, I know at least as much about the notability of the topic as anyone does. Michael Hardy 00:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Further merging/redirecting discussions are for talk: pages rather than AfD. -- Jonel | Speak 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: How do you figure that? Some policy I missed? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, let me expand on that. Keep, as the method is notable and would conceivably be searched for on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on whether it should be merged or redirected or kept as a separate article. So, I am saying that the article should not be deleted. Beyond that, discussions may continue elsewhere. -- Jonel | Speak 06:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: How do you figure that? Some policy I missed? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I also wrote most of the regression analysis article. I made this a separate article because I think it is a special case of regression. Although the linear regression article is, I think, a good introduction, it does not provide a proof for the expression of the least-squares estimator and is not very rigorous: the random variables are not defined (indeed, I think the expression "random variable" is not mentioned once in the article), and it restricts itself to the case of first degree polynomial regression. I think it is fine for people with little mathematical knowledge and that the article should stay this way. However, nowhere else that I am aware of (be it in the Gauss-Markov theorem article or in the linear regression article) do we find a proof for the general expression of the least-square estimator. Also, I think it is very important to mention the geometrical interpretation (i.e. seeing the regression as an orthogonal projection): indeed, it is the same kind of reasoning as used in Fourier analysis for example. It shows why we are minimizing the sum of squares instead of (for example) the sum of the absolute values. I think it is important to distinguish between people who just need some simple formula they can apply without having all the theoretical details and those who wish to study the problem in more depth. This article (like some of the regression analysis article) is written for the latter. Deimos 28 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Definite keep. Regression is one of my major interests, it's definitely notable and not a complete mess. Stifle 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! Nice to have positive feedback once in a while! Deimos 28 12:28, 21 February 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 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rainmeter
Advertisement page for a non-notable piece of software. PROD tag removed by original author. Sandstein 19:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Chairman S. | Talk 20:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN software, also a link to an external website mostly for download interest. Delete as adspam. Kareeser|Talk! 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Ad. Monkeyman 20:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Ruby 21:55, 19 February 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 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AgentSMS
Non-notable website. ComputerJoe 20:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement. Monkeyman 21:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advert. "leading the way" to deletion -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Created by User:Mobiryder whose only contribution to WP was to make this article, it's a bot that makes corporate brochures on WP, kill it. Kill it with fire. --Ruby 21:46, 19 February 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 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fraeon
Non-notable "artist", only 2K Google searches, article does not really establish notability. Cyde Weys 20:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. Creator of page has also added himself to 1981 in music and List of electronic music artists and DJs. Monkeyman 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Cyde --Ruby 21:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 2K google hits often = a little bit notable in my book, but none of the hits actually seem non-trivial. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unremarkable. Delete the image too. -- Krash (Talk) 00:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete. The page should be expanded instead of deleted. Ltxxx 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is Ltxxx volunteering to expand it? Delete unless expanded. Stifle 11:51, 21 February 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 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Al Maghnieh
Deletenon-notable unverifiable -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. NN, 3 google hits. Monkeyman 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn bio --Ruby 22:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Local riding association staff are not notable. Not even in Dwight Duncan's office, sorry. Delete. Bearcat 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This is AL Maghnieh....I think I know who posted this and he was trying to be funny...Please go ahead and DELETE this page asap....in fact I think I wiil try todo it myself, but if anyone knows how just do it please. Thanks...Al. Let it go ZZuuzz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by hmagn (talk • contribs).}
- Delete, I think. I'm a little confused. Stifle 11:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Basically nothing there to keep. Fan1967 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 01:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Technical Java
Delete:non-article just a tiny list of a few java things with no information on why they are particularlly notable or what thier relavence is.
- Delete. Appears to be a new user's test page. Monkeyman 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Ruby 21:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Short article with no context or encyclopedic potential. Tagged as such. Night Gyr 00:36, 20 February 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 02:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zen and the Art of Cooking Beer-Can Chicken
Non-notable cookbook, whose only claim to fame is it borrowed its title from a notable book. Previously prodded and deprodded hence here. Salix alba (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Book is available on Amazon but I suspect this is an attempt by the author for free advertising. Monkeyman 21:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- comment: this may interest the primary editor that there is a cook book on wikibooks!!! --CyclePat 21:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ---J.Smith 22:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, self-promotional advertising. -- Krash (Talk) 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Yet another newly published cookbook. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN cookbook Maustrauser 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- comment:Is there no other place such contributions may be applied or utilized? (ie.: WikISNB (for books with ISBN's that are already published? Not only that but that would be an excellent to search for books, reference these book with wikipedia, etc..._))--CyclePat 00:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Try looking at Wikicities. In wikipedia notability is an important condition, if we were not to limit the inclusion of articles the size of the project would grow beyond what we would be able to host and maintain, for instance every group of kids who decided to form a band, and there are many millions of books. The various projects in wikicities do not all have such notability requirements. There are many other sites on the internet which will be more inclusive of cookbooks than wikipedia. --Salix alba (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps there should be a guideline for cookbooks? I have a great many cookbooks in my collection (I suspect it would be considered mid-sized) and altogether very few of them are notable enough for Wikipedia. Of those that I would say are, they are thunderously influential books created by cookbook authors who are not only influential but truly define the fields they work in (Escoffier, Julia Child, Irma Rombauer), or books of great historical interest (Art of Cookery). Others are books by people who in and of themselves are notable (Alton Brown, Craig Claiborne) but have not produced works that are notable in and of themselves. I can't see having in Wikipedia, not only a book about a semi-obscure regional American dish, but not even the best-known book on the subject. Haikupoet 04:14, 22 February 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. Shanel 06:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Steak_and_Blowjob_Day
|
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 majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages 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 votes. 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
|
- KEEP I was confused when I was told by a friend that it was S+B Day, then given no further explanation. This page is the reason I know know what it is and by the looks of things it is a genuine thing that is known around the world so to delete this page would a fallacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.82.232 (talk • contribs).
- STRONG KEEP I was sent the link to the Steak&BJ Day site by a female colleague. To say it's not a famous holiday is ridiculous..... everyone I know, knows of the 'existence' of this humourous day (although there seems to be confusion over the exact date.)Maybe because most of my friends are men, and real women with a sense of humour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.52.185 (talk • contribs).
- KEEP Regardless of whether the holiday is genuine or not the article should be kept - I do not see any significant differences from many urban legends which feature articles discussing their nature. Perhaps the article should focus more on the steak and bj day's roots in web culture with similar references, in order to highlight it's fictional nature rather than give any impression that the day is in any way a genuine holiday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.69.163 (talk • contribs).
- KEEP Not only is this holiday authentic (as authentic as Pi day), this article in particular is comprehensive. It should stay. I'm a librarian and agree that to have comprehensive infoprmation on this holiday is essential, especially in a reliable resource. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.183.188.83 (talk • contribs).
- KEEP This day came up in discussion and this encylopedia gave all the information needed to understand how the day came about and the history behind it. To delete the reference would be defeating the purpose of an online encylopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malc London (talk • contribs).
- keepAll the people who want this holiday gone are women. well earth to the ladies...best holiday ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.160.124 (talk • contribs).
Delete This article is about a non-existent holiday, created by a radio DJ, and is not famous or well-known enough to be considered encyclopedic. Also, this did not reach a proper resolution the last time an AfD occurred for it. SteveJ2006 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-existent "holiday" --Ruby 22:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not this one again. It was non-notable then, it's non-notable now. --Kinu t/c 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For cross reference purposes, here's the original AfD. --Kinu t/c 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, although I admit it could use some improvement. I've heard of it several times independently, so I think it's well known enough to deserve an article. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 22:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a real holiday. I've heard it from Americans, French and even here in Ireland. It is a practiced holiday making it real, although it is slightly humourous. It would not be just to take away a male holiday since we get Valentines Day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.72.52 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (UTC) (This was left on the talk page -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC))
- Delete per nom, lack of reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologistic, non-notable holiday. -- Krash (Talk) 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It had previously been speedy deleted. That being said, the joke has spread to other outlets, including The Onion. It may be notable, if the article is cleaned-up. --Karnesky 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Semi-notable, probably slightly below the level of Talk Like A Pirate day. Haikupoet 03:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wondered the same thing and found that Talk Like A Pirate Day was much more notable in comparison. Talk Like A Pirate Day returned 340 hits on nexis, including articles in AutoWeek, The Baltimore Sun, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Sporting News, Navy Times, The New York Times, and 4 articles in the Washington Post alone. Steak and Blowjob Day returned only one article, in a college newspaper (The California Aggie of U. California-Davis). -- Dragonfiend 03:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the holiday gains notoriety every year - perhaps if it is deleted on notability this year it will pass sometime in the future. (I would also comment that this makes SD as recreated content a very iffy issue.) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- It occurred to me later that this holiday will never get mainstream press coverage - you don't see "blowjob" printed in family newspapers very often. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 06:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nexis contains alternative newspapers as well, and it appears this isn't even getting non-mainstream press coverage. The OC Weekly, LA Weekly, Village Voice, Houston Press, Miami New Times and others even manage to get "steak" and "blowjob" into the same article, but unfortunately not in any way that involves this topic. For example, The OC Weekly printed the line "Saying Sid's is a great place because you can get a piece of crap steak for 10 bucks is like bragging about getting a $5 blowjob from a homeless crack addict with trench mouth (who happens to be a relative)." I doubt the reason they haven't covered this holiday is just because it has a naughty word in its name. -- Dragonfiend 07:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have heard of it other places as well, the article deserves to stay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.65.115 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the big question is, even as more people might hear about it, is anyone actually practicing this "holiday"? If no one, or barely anyone, is actually practicing it, then it can't be considered more than the slightly humorous joke it was meant to be. SteveJ2006 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete DJ Clayworth 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom TheRingess 07:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe BJAODN?: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. It's real. Has its own website and well over 10,000 google hits for steak "bj day" Night Gyr 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- More evidence: Recent article in Kansas City Star Most people refer to it as "Steak and BJ day" so you'll get many more hits if you use BJ in your search. Night Gyr 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, noted by syndicated columnist Dan Savage [47], international news columns [48]. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, plenty of specific hits on Google and USENET; popular in the blogosphere. -Big Smooth 17:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, In my case this is just as valid as valentine's day. If the missus doesn't acknowledge steak and BJ day, then I won't acknowledge valentine's day - simple as that. Public holidays are generally just commercial inventions anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.132.58.4 (talk • contribs).
- Keep. I've heard of it and I live in Finland. --Easyas12c 23:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The fact that this article keeps on popping up suggests that it's notable enough to be included. It may have been started as a joke, but so did a whole lot of other popular movements, including Talk Like a Pirate Day and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. --Modemac 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Totally legitimate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.94.41 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As legitimate as many other holidays, as previously noted. --Js farrar 10:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There must be a celebration of men aswell! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.178.62.18 (talk • contribs).
- Keep. I hear more about this day than I do "Talk like a Pirate Day". I know a lot of people who talk about this day. It's more popular than most people believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tlegower (talk • contribs).
- Keep. I have personally celebrated this day with my partner for several years now - hey, she would prefer a steak and some oral to a bunch of flowers too... As far as I am aware there is no restriction on (for instance) religious holidays to require a certain threshold of participants before it "sufficiently exists" to warrant inclusion and it seems highly dismissive to attempt to apply such arbitrary heuristics to this content. Secondly, even if only a very small group (or indeed no-one) observe this holiday then it still does not undermine the fact that this day was created and promoted by Tom Birdsey, has an independent website and a large amount of existing references - I would note the issues and disputes, but would not censor what I perceive as legitimate content. (An aside - Neologism is not an argument for deletion per se as the content guidelines acknowledge. Indeed wikipedias own definition states "Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context."). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.35.98 (talk • contribs).
- Delete Stupid first time, stupid second time. And no, I'm not a woman. Denni ☯ 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would think it might be worth mentioning on here that at least half of the votes for "keep" have been from anonymous, unsigned users, a good portion of whom have no prior contributions to wikipedia. SteveJ2006 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks like it has enough exposure to be mentioned in a #1 link on Google for keywords "March 20th". Note to SteveJ2006 on his comment above: getting Elitist, aren't we?
- Keep. This is a no brainer. We don't remove wiki entries become someone thinks something is silly. It is a well known day, and there is absolutely no justification for removing it. "Non-notable"?!? Get with the programme, people... --Nzwiki 09:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologistic nonsense. Arundhati Bakshi 13:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's a piece of easily recognized internet culture. -- cheapcheap 16:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP there is no reason to dcelete it, and it is a piece of IRC humor TinGrin87 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I guess it is possible for nearly anything to gain sufficient notability in the internet age. Carlossuarez46 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP Just because its not an officially recognised 'holiday' doesn't make it any less real. It exists in some form or another, so why not have an article on it? Just because a few people don't like nor believe in its concept doesn't mean it shouldn't be documented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.97.52.57 (talk • contribs).
- Keep. I'd like to point out first I am of the female persuasion and am all for s&bj day in general and as such feel it should be kept. It's definitely more fun (and generally cheaper) tha Valentines Day and instead of focussing on pointless poems, gives the reciever some sustenance and fun. Oh and there's noit can't be reciprocal, far as I know, so other women shouldn't be unhappy about it. Besides, the simple fact that it has incited so much conversation from guests as well as regular wikipedia peeps suggests that it does carry cultural significance and should be kept in some form, even if it is only as the S&BJ Day Debate/Controversy. Madmarsagin 04:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP Much more enjoyable holiday than that silly christmas thing. JohnFM 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Kep Agree with sentiment re: FSM and Pirate day. I've heard about this "holiday" every year for four years now, from separate sources. Ironically, there seems to be some confusion about when it is, though... If you Google for "March 20th", the first hit is about this "holiday". Heck, I say keep just because I'm annoyed by people who's only argument against it is that it's Neologistic. :-D Come on, people, EVERYTHING is new at some point. Ehurtley 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep JeffBurdges 13:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: have heard of it from enough independent sources. – Smyth\talk 15:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
KEEP it babies
- STRONG KEEP several reasons - 1) Legitimate bit of Internet Culture (more than 3 nerds in a blog) 2) just as legitamate as other "phenomenons" we have seen turn into holidays 3) many external links lead here,and Wiki is a source of much knowlege 4) don't be a prude... this may be sophmoric, but it is an amusing attempt at equality. Make it "steak and backrub" day on your own calendar, if you must. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honk Bag (talk • contribs).
- Above is user's first contribution to Wikipedia... which seems to be a running theme in this AfD. Where were all these people during the first AfD for this article, anyway? The answer may shock you... --Kinu t/c 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there are obviously shenanigans going on here, but there are still plenty of "keep" votes with valid reasoning from established Wikipedians. -Big Smooth 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- If it looks close based upon a random sampling, then the votes can always be sorted by presence of past contributions. I found at least once case of shenanigans on the deletion side too. JeffBurdges 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there are obviously shenanigans going on here, but there are still plenty of "keep" votes with valid reasoning from established Wikipedians. -Big Smooth 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Above is user's first contribution to Wikipedia... which seems to be a running theme in this AfD. Where were all these people during the first AfD for this article, anyway? The answer may shock you... --Kinu t/c 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This certainly at this point bears noting as an internet phenomena at the very least. There is substantial blog activity on the topic, and I would second the notion "Don't be a prude". bigfatbass 03:53, 25 February 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. Shanel 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Our Savior Lutheran Church
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages 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 votes. 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
|
Delete This as a nn-church. Are we going to have an artical on every one of the 100,000 Church's in the world? ---J.Smith 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It has an elementary school and a middle school, and as we all know by now, school articles are sacred --Ruby 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's an article about a church with a school, not a school with a church, and as such, is perfectly fair game if you ask me :)
- Adrian Lamo ·· 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ruby - why must you ... ;) Monkeyman 22:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I know there are a lot of churches around but i made it for a reason, its a school an a church, and i did a report on our savior when i went to OSLS so i know this will be used by OSLS students when they need to do that report. All my deleted articles are made for a reason, its for people that are not known that need to be because of thier acomplisments and things. I just need more time for research everything i write is true. This Wikipedia is for reference and some people need information on the history of our savior.......timb345 "author of the article"
- Delete per nomination. SteveJ2006 22:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Most (not all, but most) individual churches are non-notable. The fact that this information might be useful to students of the school affiliated with the church does not warrant putting it in the Wikipedia and distributing it worldwide; it would be better to put that information on the school's own web site (and if it doesn't have a web site, it probably should). --Metropolitan90 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete. Noindication that this is more notable than a dentist's office or McDonald's franchise store. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP they have a page on a church in Austin, Texas, why not one on this church? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.213.1.133 (talk • contribs).
- We have also deleted pages on a lot of other churches, why not this one too? --Metropolitan90 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, like people had said this is important and schools are important, i can see potential, if this place wants to be complete why not have this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.58.126 (talk • contribs).
- Delete. Metropolitan90 makes a valid point. The school article may meet WP:SCHOOL, but not in its present bundled form here (and also keep in mind that this should not be a primary source for information, such as for reports, as that is not a function of Wikipedia). Also, yes, Wikipedia does have articles on churches (see Category:Churches). I just randomly clicked on one and saw that "[i]t was elevated to become a basilica by Pope John XXIII"... similar statements are made in the other churches' articles to indicate why most if not all of those are notable, whether it is number of members, status within the organization, independently notable pastor/reverend, historical value, or whatnot. This one, objectively, does not have this information, and it is likely because it does not qualify. (Ironically, there is another "Our Savior Lutheran Church" and attached school down the street from me... but of course that does not and should not deserve an article either.) --Kinu t/c 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Reverted User:Timb345's attempts to tamper with votes cast by other users. User has been admonished on user talk page; this should be the only warning the user receives. Blocking is warranted if user tampers further with AfD. — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- that was probably not a good idea, i thought it would work, it wont happen agian Timb345, actually i made it even worse for myself, im screwing my self over
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. This information belongs on the church's own website. Nothing in here convinces me that the church would show up in an encyclopaedia. Vote tampering != good karma. Stifle 11:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep They need more churches in here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.213.1.133 (talk • contribs).
- Keep It is helping more than hurting, what is it 23 kb, not even. Plus, this guy has a lot of information, we dont want to turn him off from wikipedia, even know he has crap pages, he may have good sources. I dont know, i was just thinking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.81.232 (talk • contribs).
- Delete, Non-notable. We're an encyclopaedia, not Yellow Pages --Neigel von Teighen 19:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Individual churches aren't inherently notable. AndyJones 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Who makes the over all desiscion, and when —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.216.92.138 (talk • contribs).
- Well, an administrator will review this discussion about 5 days after it began. He does not count votes as such, but he will try to assess whether the consensus of the wikipedia community is that this article should be deleted. If so, the article disappears, and thereafter it will be "speedied" (deleted on sight) if anyone tries to recreate it. At the moment I suspect he would conclude in favour of "delete" because almost all established wikipedians who have made a comment here are in favour of deleting. Most people voting keep appear to be new, which suggests that they are sockpuppets, or possibly members of the congregation who have come here to sway the ballot. There is no reason to be dismayed if the article goes. Everyone here is still welcome at wikipedia. It is simply that in building an encyclopedia you must must draw a line on what information is worthy of inclusion, and as a matter of practicality we cannot maintain an article for each of the hundreds of thousands of churches in the world. AndyJones 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey AndyJones, that was one of the best and most thoughtful things anyone has said, its honet, it answers my question, and regardless of if they delete this or not, i still think you administrators are pretty cool. thanls Timb345
- Delete nn church with nn school attached. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- If it means keeping it, it is a school that happens to have a church
- Still doesn't mean it's notable enough to be included in wikipedia. There are plenty of churches with schools attached, doesn't mean they should all have their own article on wikipedia. The school itself isn't notable enough to be included on its own either. SteveJ2006 02:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- keep: I think almost any place that is a church (perhaps even a type of historic building!) in any city should be considered notable enought for inclusion.--CyclePat 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am with cyclepat, please keep this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.213.1.134 (talk • contribs).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fubz Attractiveness Research Team and Fubz Sect
hoax, minimal amount of Google hits for "fubz sect " and "fubz cult" Obli (Talk) 22:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and file under moronic. Monkeyman 22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all as hoaxes --Ruby 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both. something made up in kindergarten. Camillus (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Water Bottle, CSD/A7 Adrian Lamo ·· 01:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sam Ellis
Non-encyclopedic page made by someone about himself. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 22:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy as Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content Monkeyman 22:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Monkeyman --Ruby 22:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is no longer about a user named Sam Ellis; it is instead about the football (soccer) manager. Please remove the article from the AfD list. - Dudesleeper 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
