Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erol güngör

Untranslated at WP:PNT for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No idea what language it's in now. --Walter Görlitz 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also Turkish ColinFine 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per two-week rule. --Aaron 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete untranslated. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Two weeks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as untranslated. However, my research reveals he's notable enough for an article, if anyone feels like writing one or translating this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Frühstücksdienst 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as untranslated after two weeks. --Terence Ong 03:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just for the record: an academic and book author connected to the rightwing-nationalist "Ülkü Ocakları" movement. ([1]) Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per alll above Avi 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete untranslated, 2/52 - Samir ∙ ^T_C 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As untranlated per 2 week requirement.--Dakota ~ ° 19:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above.--Tone 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:44, 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 no consensus to delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal düşünce topluluğu

From the translation desk, untranslated for two weeks. Entry from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably Turkish, probably a minor political party.--M@rēino 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per rule Travislangley 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per two-week rule. --Aaron 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete untranslated. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Tonywalton  | Talk 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Two weeks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Frühstücksdienst 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as untranslated and per two week rule. --Terence Ong 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's an "Association for Liberal Thinking", with an English-language website here: [2]. I would look closer into it if only I had the time. If somebody could try and determine by that site whether it's notable, I'd be willing to provide text for a stub later. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move now that it's been reworked, with thanks to Keresaspa. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and translate. It is notable in Turkey. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above Avi 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've rewritten it from the link provided by Lukas (well done for that, sir). I have no knowledge of Turkish so I moved the original entry to the discussion page in case anyone feels like translating it. Other than perhaps moving the article to Association for Liberal Thinking nad leaving the original title as a redirect I feel that it now should be saved. Keresaspa 17:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, none of the delete votes argued that a translated version should be deleted. Kusma (討論) 18:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It has been translated and as previously stated none of the votes call for deletion of a translated version.--Dakota ~ ° 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep new version and move to Association for Liberal Thinking. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and did the move. Recommend early closure of this AfD. Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teamcast

Non-notable mod for dreamcast Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A quick Google search only retrieves unrelated results. Delete as non-notable and unverified. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Frühstücksdienst 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Idril 13:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:43, 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glennwood Projects

Not much context given; the article may refer to a legitimate topic, but I fear that there is not much to salvage in the current text. Schutz 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The place exists (here's an unofficial website devoted to it), but it's spelled Glenwood, not Glennwood. And I agree that the little text that this article contains is meaningless and unsalvageable. If someone else wants to write an article about these projects later on, let them start with a clean slate. --Aaron 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aaron. —ERcheck @ 01:19, 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 Speedy delete A7

[edit] Canfield swim team

Vanity SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete vanity. KI 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -Does a club count as a group of people, or an organization. It asserts notability, but none of this seems remotely linked to doing well at (US?) national swimming championships - I don't think any of their people have been selected to represent their countyr.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• I suspect that YSL stands for youth swimming league. Doesn't seem to be notable. Delete. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arm Wrestling (arcade game)

I think this page should be deleted because there is only one sentence on the page and I don't think alot can be added to it. Gamerforever 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Give it time. Travislangley 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a real game1, and the sentence is factual. It has the potential to be more than a stub, if someone who's actually played the game comes around and adds something. --djrobgordon 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Arm Wrestling? There's really not much to say there. Non-notable. Jaxal1 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, really bad start... but, I think with the link it serves some purpose. gren グレン 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am going to save this article now. rydia 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I moved to Arm Wrestling since it was unused... arm wrestling, of course, is that little game thing. gren グレン 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Shouldnt it have stayed at the original title?, having articles with only a capital letter thats different is confusing -- Astrokey44|talk 10:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• If you want. But make you you redirect Arm Wrestling to Arm wrestling and put a disambiguation on the top if it that link to Arm Wrestling (arcade game). gren グレン 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Needs much work. VirtualSteve 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep certainly more than one sentence there now. Jcuk 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jcuk --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is much more than a one line article now.--Dakota ~ ° 19:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per above. --Tone 21:54, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon Orbit

By itself, the article is not worth its salt, as it seems like a minor part of Cartoon Network's site. This probably deserves a mention, but on Cartoon Network instead of its own page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It has its place. Travislangley 06:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It does. In its heyday there were over a million active users. Now it is still at a very high number. It has been the only part of the website to last over 7 years. It needs to be there. There will be more information added if people would just discover it. People need to give it a chance. They need to wait for the search engines to at least get it. SportsMasterESPN (Talk) 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Over 100,000 Google hits which seems sufficient to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wow, at first I thought that cited 100K figure was a result of mistakenly not using quotes in the search. It wasn't. This, apparently, is a notable subject. Cyde Weys 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Wknight94. ---J.Smith 06:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wknight94, notable enough. --Terence Ong 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cyde. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:15, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lecomte

competed in 1 event, 8th place: is this a joke? Pol098 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Unless including every Olympian ever is some kind of precedent I'm not aware of. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. An Olympian has got to be known for something or accomplished something of note. The above seems nothing more than an obscure athlete. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He came eighth- in the world. This is good enough, especially for the early pioneers of the sport. A lot of people have not reached #8 in the world. Why are competitors on reality shows and bandcruft and small businesses get off so lightly??? This is written by User:Jonel, with more than 5000 edits, who has greatly expanded the Olympic coverage on WP.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - not a joke, it is referenced, and click "what links here".Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Merely playing Major League baseball or NFL football is sufficient to have an article. The Olympics represent a similar level of notability for many lesser-known sports. See notability, people still alive.--djrobgordon 02:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Coming in 8th in an archery event at the Olympics in 2004 would give a person a claim to being the 8th-best archer in the world. Coming in 8th in an archery event at the Olympics in 1900 meant that he was the 8th-best archer who happened to be at the Paris World's Fair that day. The 1900 Summer Olympics were not contested at the same level of competition as contemporary Olympics, as suggested by the fact that contemporary sportswriters failed to keep track of the subject's given name. Note that Archery at the 1900 Summer Olympics indicates that only three countries (France, Belgium, and Netherlands) competed in archery at that Olympics, and none of the Dutch archers' names are known. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - In the old days the level and consistency of sport was not that great - does that mean that the forefathers of sport should be deleted?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. My first inclination was "delete," but djrobgordon and Blnguyen make good points. dbtfz^talk 03:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Olympians. Participation in the Olympic Games is certainly sufficient for notability. As for the "fact that contemporary sportswriters failed to keep track of the subject's given name", please note that all Olympic Reports until 1964 similarly "failed". As for having every Olympian, please check Category:Competitors at the 1896 Summer Olympics. It includes every Olympian for whom we have a name from the 1896 Games. -- Jonel | Speak 05:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The official Olympic reports included athletes' first names well before 1964; see [3] for examples. Note that the 1960 Summer Olympics report devoted over 200 pages to a list of every athlete participating in the Games, including their full names, dates of birth, places of birth, heights, and weights, none of which are known in the case of Lecomte. Furthermore, even if an athlete's full name had not been printed in the official report, his or her full name would be known if they had accomplished something of merit -- it's not as though sports historians are wondering, "I wonder who this Ewry is, who won 3 gold medals at Paris 1900?" They know who he is. I guess I'm much in the minority here, but I do not think that merely competing in the 1900 Olympics is an accomplishment comparable to competing in the contemporary Olympics in the 21st century, since the idea of having to qualify for one's national team was a minor aspect or nonexistent in 1900. --Metropolitan90 04:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per good point by Blnguyen. --Hansnesse 05:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because he's an Olympian. In this world of non-notable computer programmers, launderers who have written encyclopedia articles about themselves, and Rachel Clemons, an Olympian is a breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. Wiwaxia 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Olympians are notable enough. Provided this athelete has won awards in other games and competitions. --Terence Ong 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - being selected to represent your country at the Olympic Games imbues more than enough notability, without anything else being necessary. Proto||type 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: per. Jonel. That's why I qualified my earlier delete vote - I didn't know if there was an include-all precedent like in other sports. Apparently there is... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep After myself proposing this for deletion I have investigated further, and replaced what must be the spurious mention of Beaudoin in article by Lecomte, which leaves it making sense (I have also rewritten the text). The article originally made no sense, asserting nothing whatsoever about Lecomte. Pol098 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Blnguyen Avi 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not certain at this moment if I would support the blanket statement that all Olympic athletes are notable. However, I certainly support the idea that being an Olympian should change the burden of proof. Instead of having to demonstrate his worthiness to include him in the WP, we should have to demonstrate his lack of worthiness to keep him out of the WP. He's an Olympian and there's no compelling reason not to include him. -- Don Sowell 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not knowing his first name might demonstrate unworthiness!  ;-) 21:57, 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 userfy and delete. One "abstain," one "question," no votes to keep. Chick Bowen 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikho Mosulishvili

Non-notable autobiography by User:Mikho Mosulishvili; see the page history. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy & Delete --Karnesky 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete. I notified User:Mikho Mosulishvili that the article was up for deletion, and that userfying the content might be a good option. dbtfz^talk 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete. Vanity page -Crenner 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and off main pedia. VirtualSteve 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy This biographical entry contains no argument for notability.  (aeropagitica)  07:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Question. Is being decorated by ones country not notable? He claims to have been awarded the Georgian Medal of Honour. Jcuk 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, then Delete Non notable author Avi 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Mikho replaced this page with an unwikied version of the article [4] & I reverted it. --Karnesky 14:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I think we might be a little hasty here. I've gotten a decent amount of google hits, some of which are from Russian web portals I've heard of, as well as places selling or reviewing his works. Now mind you, he does appear to be a shameless self-promoter, as I'm also seeing hits of him on entirely unrelated things. Mind you, however that any hits from modern Georgian culture do *not* google well at all due to language/script/unicode issues. He seems to me to be a low-to-mid-level author; his books are still in print and seem to be moderately available, his radio plays also seem notable. There's also the issue of his Georgian Medal of Honour. His website notes that it was translated from Georgian by a professional(!) translator, which would make it seem that his command of English is shaky, at best. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've never heard of him before in Georgia. Georgian search engines give only three hits including his personal web page. Kober 11:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Anarchofied by me. (i.e. moved to Anarchopedia). Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. 11 deletes including nom, not including anon, 3 keeps. Chick Bowen 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Bowery

Dubious claims, may be vanity or hoax sannse (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

- Delete - not notable, and am doubtful about the claims. --149.169.52.67 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

- Keep - Wikipedia must Keep this article. Bowery is a very interesting man, a United States patent holder in rocket science-related areas, sponsors space prizes out of his own pocket, and spends most of his time researching and writing with notable acclaim and is very controversial, hence someone voted for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Better_Than_You_At_Everything (talk • contribs).

- Delete - He invented e-mail, PostScript, VR and chat, and he's the closest living relative to the Kennewick man? Should we also list every guy who believes he's Napoleon? Fan1967 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even with the self-promotional personality described in the webpage he only has around 800 google hits, and only about 200 for google groups. Seems to be a highly non-notable self-promoting megalomaniac. JoshuaZ Keep, bu02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain Try searching under 'Jim Bowery' instead; over 4000 hits for author:'Jim Bowery'. Bowery is a net.kook of great vintage, but he attempts to hide his history. This article wasn't written by him, either, but by his detractors (except for the small revision by JABowery). Since I count myself among his detractors, I abstain. Rpresser 06:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Just looking at his website asserts NN. Vanity article. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also don't forget need to delete his redirect Baldrson also. JoshuaZ 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and watch - had to think long and hard on this one - to my mind he is more notable than not but article does read like a vanity page. Nothing stopping those interested in adjusting the article style and linking to what appears to be a number of notable external links. If we can have a other loopy articles we can have this one but it needs to be de-vanity(ised)! VirtualSteve 06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep This needs to be NPOV'ed as the article mentions merely in passing the subject's contribution to the Internet and electronic comms whilst dwelling on the shadier aspects of the biography. I don't feel that this is truly representative of the subject as it currently stands.  (aeropagitica)  07:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• No vote I can't find evidence that he invented PostScript, although he did write a document analyzing PostScript's evolution from FORTH; Google results for PostScript "jim bowery". If this gets kept, it will need to be rewritten for POV, as the current version seems to really downplay his White Nationalist views; see [5], also (straight from the horse's mouth) [6]. ergot 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep There are some things that ring true. For example, he is listed here http://www.platopeople.com/people.html so there is some corroboration of evidence. He is actually the rightmost person on the third picture in the second row here: http://www.platopeople.com/index.html Much of the other claims are unverified; even the author, Bowery, is offering rewards for disproof of his claims. It is possible that some of the emails may be fake, but as much of his claims come from being highly involved with the PLATO system, and that has been coroborrated, it should be kept, with the caveat that it needs further verification, IMO Avi 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I knew that someone other than this guy was normally credited with the invention of email, but I couldn't recall his name earlier. 'Twas Ray Tomlinson (who had a working email system when Bowery was just 17). ergot 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• No vote. Is this the internet troll who occasionally posts racist screeds to kuro5hin.org? I have no real interest or non-public resources to verify any more of this, but I can vouch for the existence of someone named "Baldrson" who may hold views such as are described on that site. Whether this makes him notable enough, I have no opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (change vote); he says he's not noteworthy enough for an article: good enough for me. Smerdis of Tlön 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• No vote: (in)famous kuro5hin troll (sometimes interesting). He is one of authors of Javascript framework Tibet [7] (think something of Ajax but w/o the hype) so his technology claims could true. Pavel Vozenilek 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of internet trolls, posters and bloggers, many very prolific and controversial, but readership confined to a few sites or message boards. Doesn't make them notable. Are his career achievements notable enough to deserve an article? No. Fan1967 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As with many of the other statements attributed to me, it is a bit of an exaggeration to claim I am "one of the authors of TIBET". As my resume clearly states: "2001 Originated the idea and technical approach for TIBET(tm) method inference and multiple inheritance algorithms." Jim Bowery 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed vote to delete per request of the person. The "author of Tibet" was sentence from my head, I didn't check for exact wording. Pavel Vozenilek 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't think that there has been enough public notariety of my work to justify a Wikipedia article about me. While I view my accomplishments as significant enough and verifiable with reasonably accessible private sources, there are only 2 times I've made it into the mainstream press and only 1 article published by me in a major publication. Jim Bowery 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So, why don't you put this on your user page, instead? -- Avi 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What is at issue is an article about me, not my WP user page Jim Bowery 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not appear that he started the article. What he wants to put on his user page is his business. :) Smerdis of Tlön 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. --Pigs Dying 01:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Isn't it time up for a decision? Jim Bowery 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheCampusForum

Advertisement for message boards which fail to meet the notability guidelines - EurekaLott 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Travislangley 06:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Gjc8 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Frühstücksdienst 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. VirtualSteve 06:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 17:01, 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 no consensus, kept. Chick Bowen 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous bank robbers and robberies

No actual content, would work much better as a category. KI 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Valid encyclopedia content. Travislangley 06:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have come to this page often, and I think the content is not only interesting but worthy of sharing. 20:02, 22 February 2006 (PST).
• keep - Among myriads of lists on Wikipedia, this one is as good as many others. Ashish G 02:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This should be expanded - maybe into a table? - but seems interesting to me. I'd kinda like to see a better adjective than just the undefined "famous". At least use the Wikibuzzword, "notable". —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Categories and lists serve different functions. While this list doesn't include information other than names, it has that potential. FYI, Category:Bank robbers already exists. --djrobgordon 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Could be easily expanded and is certainly a notable subject. PJM 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to be expanded. Frühstücksdienst 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's got plenty of actual content. No reason for deleting the information has been stated.
  • What "actual content" do you see? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wknight94. Just like he said, this could be put into a table, and the word "notable" is much better than "famous." Notable bank robbers and robberies, perhaps. ♠ SG →Talk 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Valid encyclopedic content. Cyde Weys 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless Vote to delete all lists is successful. ---J.Smith 06:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete really interesting topic but Ki is right, there's really no reason why this shouldn't just be a category --Nick Roberts 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The problem with deleting all lists and replacing them with categories is that you can't add red links to a category, which means you cannot create more extensive lists. A list itself is information, amplified by the articles it links to.- Montréalais 08:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Terence Ong 12:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely useful content, but better implemented as a category. I'm not a fan of list pages on WP and it is still possible to view members of a category as a list. StephenHildrey 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... shoulc be a category.--Isotope23 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm baffled by those who profess to see any "content." This is the perfect example of the list that ought bo e replaced by a category. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Categorify per norm. Cdcon 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but put into a category. Duinemerwen 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article needs a bit of work, but needs to be kept as it is still valid content. Ridge Racer 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into category Daemon8666 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think that it can be useful to have it separated by countries in which it occurred, something I don't think a category can do. --Mathwizard1232 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep interesting, seems notable etc. Georgewilliamherbert 20:45, 26 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. Though there were some votes to merge, all of them suggested that only parts of the article should be merged, and none of them were specific about what parts. So I interpreted the consensus as, "delete unless someone else figures out something to merge;" no one did. Chick Bowen 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy on Radiometric dating

POV fork; should be merged back into Radiometric dating or Radiocarbon dating. Peyna 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep i'd want to see if something good can come out of this, the radiocarbon dating article is getting long and a straightforward list and explanation of more famous controversies could be beneficial. Homestarmy 02:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither of the articles I proposed for merger are by any means overly lengthy or crowded. Please see WP:POVFork. Peyna 04:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Homestarmy. JoshuaZ 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)<\s>
• Delete outright as POV rubbish --DV8 2XL 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment It definitely needs a lot of work, but it is a topic that is highly reasonable for an article. JoshuaZ 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Merge any relevant info to Radiometric dating. This does not warrant an article by itself. Monkeyman^(talk) 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move the title sounds a bit problematic. Move to Controversy over Radiometric dating or Radiometric dating controversy. Bobby1011 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing worth merging to Radiometric dating - it's all tired creationist POV straw grabbing. Vsmith 02:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Radiometric dating, cleaning up and making NPOV along the way. Radiometric dating is not too long, and there is some salvagable info in this article.--Gjc8 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge examples, but clean up and NPOV. delete Schizombie 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tired creationist nonsense. Please see talk.origins. Cyde Weys 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Radiometric dating, and edit for NPOV and relevance Delete. I don't have any problem with a note in radiometric dating acknowledging that some people challenge the concept of radiometric dating on the basis of their religious beliefs, which is certainly true, and which is what this is likely to distill down to. Actinide 06:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On reflection, delete - given there is no "controversy" as such, no such name should redirect to radiometric dating.Actinide 20:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete - separate controversy articles certainly seem to be POV forks. (At least, when the controversy isn't the main reason a lot of people have heard about it.) Michael Ralston 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete as above. At present it is a mess and should be merged back with a clean up. If the part of the main article begins to get large, it could be considered for rewriting, but under the more POV names suggested above. If a clean up is not done on the merge, delete it. --Bduke 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't vote merge unless you plan on doing the merge yourself. There are over a hundred AfD discussions that end each day; how many of them are merge, and how much effort do you expect the closing admins to put into this? Regardless, there is no salvageable information in the article in question. It's all thoroughly refuted claptrap. If you want to see why it is false, check out here, here, here, et al. Actually the whole talkorigins site is a good reference. --Cyde Weys 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete BUT
  • Merge only the paragraph about the nature of the controversy.
  • If final consensus is to merge DO NOT merge with radiocarbon dating. It doesn't belong there. What's missing there is a section on chemical pretreatment of samples to be dated since that's a source of misunderstanding. A radiocarbon date is as good as the dated material. If it has been contaminated by old or young carbon, the date does not represent the historical or geological event ascribed to the sample. What it would be useful is to include, in all dating articles, clear statements about the difference between the dates of minerals in rocks vs the dates of geomorphological formations composed of the same rocks. Jclerman 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unecessary POVfork. Interested parties could merge per Peyna if they are interested in keeping this information.--Isotope23 14:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the "controversies" outlined are misleading. As per Actinide, the radiocarbon dating article should include information on disagreements based on religous beliefs. Cheers, Rickert 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article does not address its importance and its notability. The article is not necessarily POV (there are claims and counterclaims), but falls dangerously close to violating WP:NOR as it is unclear, from the citations given, how valid each of its points are. Cdcon 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There may be controversy about radiometric dating, but this article doesn't talk about it. Also appears to suffer from an acute case of WP:OWN: "Rebuttle [sic] deleted"? (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page has no value - it merely refers to sources without presenting any information on this debate. (In addition, religious beliefs do not cause controversy about the accuracy of radiometric dating, although it is worth mentioning that Creationists use these alleged inaccuracies in their arguments.) -- Mithent 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is hopeless and should be at best a tiny note in radiometric dating. JoshuaZ 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete BUT I certainly think that the Radiometric dating article should mention the criticisms from creationists - to say "tired creationist nonsense" is obviously not NPOV. It should be (briefly) mentioned, and interested parties can then add their rebuttals, citing references. Camillus (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I lose at about, what 18:1? delete this article already heh. Homestarmy 01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and AfD stays open for five days. Peyna 04:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as POV fork. And lol. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Radiometric dating. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving disputes. Stifle 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to gag-reflex mergists: What do you intend upon merging? The POV original research or the non-notable and contrived examples which don't seem to demonstrate much except that things have occasionally been dated. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Frost

nn. been in one indie movie (Elephant (film)) Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP. Monkeyman^(talk) 02:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: According to IMDB1 he's been in three full length films and two festival-screened shorts. In two of the features, including "Elephant," he received first billing. That's good enough for me. --djrobgordon 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep, significant IMDB credits. Monicasdude 06:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid IMDB credits. Travislangley 06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the IMDb.com credits are valid but few; is the subject a truly notable actor? Could quotes from critics be contributed to demonstrate Mr Frost's notability through his performances?  (aeropagitica)  07:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)\
• Keep Information in article is backed by a verifiable source, meets the verifiability test. (IMBD) --Cymsdale 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. IMDB page indicates reasonable filmography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakalle and Cymsdale. --Terence Ong 12:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:27, 28 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, defaults to keep. Chick Bowen 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpinnWebe

Recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe, attempts to delete it by speedy means are being thwarted by meatpuppets, perhaps listing on AfD will stop them. --Ruby 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The Dysfunctional Family Circus was not just "hosted on SpinnWebe" like SpinnWebe is somesort of free webspace (like geocities). It was designed, hosted, updated, edited, etc etc as a part of SpinnWebe (which now hosts AAA A1 captions in the same vein)JohnRussell 05:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as notable per my comments on the matter before. Spinn has not asked to to do anything in this matter, he doesn't even know me. I am just a fan who has been going to the site for 10 years and it's pop press coverage on the DFC internet meme should be enough to keep it. Also, I don't see a big 'influx' of wikipedia people that have never voted before makeing their thoughts known on this issue, I see mostly people of the wikipedia community who were late in hearing about a vote.JohnRussell 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The Dysfunctional Family Circus was hosted on SpinnWebe but that in itself does not make it notable. Is there some criteria in WP:WEB that this site meets? Monkeyman^(talk) 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I did a quick check on Alexa and got 664,000 or so, which is even worse than the 400,000 or so it had when it was deleted earlier this month. --Ruby 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Alexa rank (664,215!), possibly speedy if this is a recreation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think that it meets WP:WEB with criteria 1 (Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address) and 3 (The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators). Bobby1011 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Trivial coverage, etc" is an exclusion to Criteria 1 which would indicate you prefer a Delete vote. Your comment is a bit confusing. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment How right you are. I misread the criteria. Bobby1011 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as notable per Bobby1011. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as re-creation, unless one of the supporters wants to dispute that it is a re-creation.--Gjc8 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many people doing just that below - does that change your vote? DenisMoskowitz 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per Gjc8. Bobby1011 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a meatpuppet, and I think we should toss that accusation around less casually. There have been a number of recent AfD nominations of sites that were once extremely notable, but less so lately—this is one, Mirsky's Worst of the Web is another. These are historically important sites for the web, and I think they deserve keeping on those grounds—otherwise, as sites slip into the past, we'll be deleting our communal memory too. There's a difference netween brand-new sites no one's heard of—the situations WP:WEB is really designed for—and once-notable sites that are now history. What's suck.com's Alexa rating nowadays? What will it be in five years? It doesn't matter, it's significant as an important aspect of the web's development. SpinnWebe was once very well-known and even got some mainstream press, but its notoriety was largely in pre-google days and it isn't very well-known now except for the Dysfunctional Family Circus flap. Admittedly, it never had the following of Suck, and the suggestion to merge it into the Dysfunctional Family Circus isn't totally off-base, but on balance I say keep. —rodii 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnote: For the record, see an "orphaned" debate here. Some of the "meatpuppets" in that discussion, such as Zompist and SchuminWeb, have a solid history of edits in article space. Schuminweb makes a reasonable defense of the removal of the speedy template here. You may or may not agree with his reasoning, but let's assume good faith, please—this is not the usual gang of idiots on some gamer clan board being trotted out to defend teh h0nor of their site. —rodii 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnote 2: SchuminWeb used a script to rally a get-out-the-vote drive for this second AfD from the following Wikipedians:

• 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rodii (AWB assisted message)
• 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zompist (AWB assisted message)
• 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:DenisMoskowitz (AWB assisted message)
• 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TreyVanRiper (AWB assisted message)
• 19:02, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:JohnRussell (AWB assisted message)
• 19:02, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spinn (AWB assisted message)
• 18:58, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Notmydesk (top)

--Ruby 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop implying there's something untoward going on here. He alerted interested people who posted on the speedy delete page. I see nothing sinister in that. --Spinn 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing implied, other than evidence of my assertion of meat-puppetry and a full disclosure for the admin who eventually closes this AfD, assuming it's not speedied overnight. --Ruby 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should add my name to the list as well, since this page was brought to my attention through a discussion concerning the deletion. Of course, since SchuminWeb does not know me, nor zompist or notmydesk, personally, the accusation of script-use is pretty serious especially when it can be easily disproven. Having an active community, especially consisting of people who have their own extensive entries in Wikipedia, should not count as evidence of untoward behavior, but actually gives credence to the argument that the site does in fact hold relevance. I find it even more ironic that two people involved in this discussion are people who at one point or another had personal run-ins with spinn, yet one of them wrote the article and the other voted for the original deletion. Personally, I see this article not necessarily simply falling under web content, but rather a description of the history of an influential and active home site of an active, influential web personality. While spinn may be no Lawrence Lessig in his Alexa ratings or Technorati listing, his influence on many other personalities like Lore Sjoberg, Zompist, and notmydesk should not be discounted. Maybe it should just be rewritten to be about him instead of referencing his through his home website. --Leth

I'd consider "meat-puppetry" as untoward, if I understand the term. I'm interpreting it as your being under the impression I'm just telling my friends to post in the article's defense. It's especially ironic, since Schumin is specifically not a friend, given the amount of abuse I've heaped on him in the past. --Spinn 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain. Per this discussion, I wasn't eligible to vote on the first AfD anyway, since I'm biased. Also, per this edit to my user page, I had no right to comment on the encyclopedic nature of Spinnwebe when my own user page isn't worthwhile for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Elkman 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. SpinnWebe's notability under [WP:WEB], footnote 5, might be secured alone by the loving review in The New Yorker (June 10, 1996)— a review of the whole site, note, not just the DFC. The DFC shutdown was covered by, among others, Editor and Publisher, Wired News, The Arizona Republic, MacCentral, the Toronto Sun, and Playboy. Alexa's current rating is irrelevant; the site is an important part of web history. Zompist 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The original Afd was rushed through on 5 delete votes (including Elkman who, though having a perfect right to vote, did not disclose his personal interest), and was based on a misstatement (that Spinn wrote the Wikipedia article). This is not a shining moment in Wikipedia consensus. Instead of defending this rush job, calling names, and relying on inappropriate criteria, I'd love to see the Delete people acting like encyclopedia editors and making an actual case.Zompist 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm obviously a bit biased, but I think my logic is sound. For each point:
  • Criteria for inclusion. It meets #1 of WP:WEB. Discussion should really be over at this point. I don't understand why it isn't. (By the way, Bobby1011 said it meets #3 as well, but to my knowledge it doesn't.) Yes, it's because of the Dysfunctional Family Circus, but the articles and interviews aren't about the DFC concept in general, but the SpinnWebe version. When asked in an online chat about "internet parodies", Bil Keane talked about the SpinnWebe version specifically. These are not simple site listings or trivial coverage. These were people from Associated Press and Wired calling me and asking me for quotes. And yes, that's SW's one claim to fame, but there's no requirement that all aspects of the web site be publicized to confer notability.
  • Alexa ranking. Immaterial. Alexa is a research tool, it's not a stated standard for inclusion in WP:WEB. It's a means to determine if it meets the guidelines, but it doesn't matter, the previous point already established it. Besides, what about ground-breaking web sites that no longer exist? They have an Alexa ranking of nothing, should we delete those, too? What's XOOM's Alexa rating? What's The Spot's Alexa rating?
  • Speedy deletion. Yes, the article was deleted, and I understand that. As it stood, a neutral third party could not immediately see the article met WP:WEB. Yes, it was reinstated with identical information--it probably shouldn't have been. However, having been alerted to the issue, I added the detail that brought it under inclusion guidelines. This is all in line with Guide to deletion: If you disagree with the consensus (third paragraph). This article is no longer a candidate for speedy deletion.

So, yes, the site is a shadow of its former glory. But Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. It had glory, with ample (and provided) evidence to support it, and thus clearly meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. --Spinn 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - per Spinn above, and if you don't think he's a fair witness, pretend I said it. The site was highly notable in my rememberance of the web nearly 10 years ago (my god it's been that long). If notability is measured substantially against current Alexa rankings and other subjective and moving criteria, then every site will eventually be NN and deletable (save a lot of disk space.). If we get rid of Spinnwebe, let's pitch TOTSE, maybe Suck.com, how about Seanbaby and Old Man Murray, they haven't updated their sites in ages... remember, if a website doesn't consist of 100,000 bored teens and undertasked office workers posing Photoshops, snarky blog entries and belabored in-jokes ad-infinitum it's non-notable. KWH 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to see one of the Delete editors come up with an actual argument as to why WP:WEB criteria 1 is not met. KWH 07:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Dysfunctional Family Circus. The tiny details of what his personal Web site featured are unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 07:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This page was already listed for deletion, the vote was to delete. The webmaster (Spinn) and others associated with the site rallied people to recreate the article (see the number of blank red lines voting in the speedy delete page and this guy apparently just registered to vote in that page [8]). It was recreated almost exactly as it was you can see a copy of the old page here and because it was created almost exactly as it was before it did not have significant improvement and thus qualified for a speedy deletion. I put a speedy delete template and that as well was removed by User:Schuminweb (as Ruby pointed out, that user also participated in Vote Stacking and many of those voting keep here got his messages see his page history [9]. He has also been accused of vote stacking before see his talk page specifically the comment by User:Gorgan almighty). I did not want to have a revert war so I just left it like that and advised the admin who closed the previous afd about the situation. They also rallied around another page I put up for afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirsky's Worst of the Web) and User:Notmydesk made a snide remark "kids these days..." along with a remark by User:Zompist "According to your user page, you were eight years old when Mirsky created his page. You don't know what was notable then" (by the way, that user put up his own site in another Wikipedia page Zompist.com). Wikipedia is not for ads for websites and trying to break with wikipedia policy to perserve this article is ludicrous. With regards to DFS, even the article itself states that the website did not create DFS. Quote from article "While the Dysfunctional Family Circus concept was not original to SpinnWebe...." so then what is your website notable for?--Jersey Devil 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• You're not helping your case by mistating things that are easily checked. I didn't create (or in any way affect) the article about my site. And of course it’s no coincidence that people will look at other Afds you are doing. I have nothing to do with Mirsky’s. The comment about your age is a reminder that many of us were around on the web in that period, when you could have no personal experience of what was notable or not. Do you have some other reason that your opinion about the noteworthiness of 1995 websites is worth listening to? As for Spinnwebe's notability, see my points above. Zompist 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• First of all, if you're going to argue about whether or not to take down a page, shouldn't you argue based on the merits of the page itself, and less on the people placing votes, or resurrecting a page? You're guilty of argument ad hominem, an obvious logical fallacy. Secondly, I take offense that you claimed I joined Wikipedia only to vote to keep Spinnwebe. You might have noticed my talk page where someone thanked me for my participation in a discussion regarding Citadel BBSes. I only recently created my user page because, frankly, I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia, and frankly, I didn't really want to create my own home page originally, because I don't really think I'm all that important. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• JD, perhaps the reason people "rallied" against your suggested deletion of Mirsky's page is that you were off-base in suggesting it be deleted, based as it was on a simple counting of yahoo hits and not taking into account anything regarding the history and notability of the site itself -- much as you're doing with spinn's page. And, frankly, if you're going to take me to task for me "snidely" saying "kids these days..." you might want to take a number of others here to task for snidely calling myself and others "meat-puppets."--Notmydesk 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment For those viewing this page check out this page on the Spinnwebe Forum "Reinstatement campaign anyone?". [10] I knew this was what was going on, now we have the proof. As a matter of fact, in that thread Spinn says "Well, here's the Google cache version of the page, anyway. It's a shame, I could recreate all this fairly easily, but I think it's bad form if I do it myself.". So it is infact confirmed that they just c&ped back the same old page that was deleted (many sites make copies of old wikipedia pages). It wasn't 'improved' and thus the speedy deletion template was warranted.--Jersey Devil 09:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I won't keep commenting here, but I do want to note a few things: (a) I can't speak for anyone else I resent the implication that I'm here because Schumin "recruited" me. I have zero interest or involvement in SpinnWebe; I read AfD and comment where I have something to contribute—I didn't see Schumin's note until after I commented here. But informing people who have spoken up in a debate that it's continuing in another forum could be seen as a courtesy instead of a conspiracy. (b) Wikipedians have a right to comment, even if they have some involvement in the issue being discussed. Please note that the alleged meatpuppets actually made arguments and didn't just do the usual newbie "Dont Delete our Board you fuckers!" kind of nonsense we often see on AfD. (c) The Mirsky nom is a separate issue, but "kids these days" sounds funny rather than snide to me. Maybe you have to be old to get it. (d) Most importantly, if you read the page JerseyDevil so triumphantly adduces, instead of just his cherrypicked examples, in my opinion you'll see Spinn working fairly respectfully within the Wikipedia process to get his page reinstated. To hold up that page as some kind of evidence of bad faith is just not appropriate. rodii 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I had no idea that Schumin has attempted to 'recruit' me. Frankly, this is argumentum ad hominem, and shouldn't influence one's vote. There's a difficult problem here; Wikipedia would want to avoid having a bunch of fanboys jumping on the bandwagon and defending the honor of some po-dunk nothing web site that some idiot posted, but doesn't really belong on the Wikipedia. On the other hand, I would think that the Wikipedia would want to know about an influential web site from the early days, and would want people who are informed about that site (who, most likely, would be that site's fans) to provide credible information about it. This is why I urgently ask the voters to consider the merits of the page based on the page's merits, and not the merits of the people voting for it. Otherwise, you risk turning the Wikipedia into something less than useful. -- TreyVanRiper 14:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn website, if the writer keeps on recreating, protect it. --Terence Ong 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Spinnwebe was extremely well known in the web community for its particular handling of Dysfunctional Family Circus. It found itself targetted by Bill Keane (of Family Circus fame) for a lawsuit on the issue, which Spinn avoided by having a discussion with Mr. Keane, and eventually taking down the Dysfunctional Family Circus itself. As commented elsewhere, if you want to delete this page, you may as well delete a lot of other pages regarding other notable web sites that have come and gone. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hey, TreyVanRiper (the user who left the unsigned 'keep' vote).....why is it you just created your user page yesterday? [11]? P.S I am aware your contributions go back to mid January 2006. Also rodii, I haven't accused you of anything. I have accused the relatively new posters who came out united to vote in the speedy deletion page.--Jersey Devil 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Cry of frustration. Let's look at the "relatively new posters" on that Speedy Deletion page and the dates of their first edits:

Keep votes

Spinn: 19 Jul 2005

TreyVanRiper: 13 Jan 2006

notmydesk: 30 Aug 2005, but that's it until the recent kerfuffle

SchuminWeb: 7 Apr 2005

JohnRussell: 22 Sep 2005

K-Man: only edit

DenisMoskowitz: 3 May 2004

Zompist: 8 Aug 2005

rodii: 25 Dec 2004

Delete or recuse votes

Elkman: 25 Jul 2005

JerseyDevil: 6 May 2005

So it looks to me as if only K-Man, TreyVanRiper and arguably notmydesk really fall into the category Jersey Devil is talking about. But more important, most of those people are actually making arguments about encyclopedicity, whereas you are only talking about meatpuppets and process. A number of your points from the original AfD have been refuted (Spinn being the original author, the author being a "redlink", etc.) and arguments supporting notability have been advanced, and all we keep hearing from you is accusations of bad faith. WTF does it matter when someone created their user page?

I don't really care about this deletion that much--I said above I'd be happy with a merge or even a delete without prejudice. I just think we should get away from the OMG MEATPUPPETS stuff. rodii 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies.. I thought I had left the note signed. I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. This is also why I hadn't created a user page originally: I neither knew how, nor thought myself important enough to rate one. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment.

• You voted delete on the original article on the basis I wrote it, yet I did not.
• You're suggesting Zompist should be looked at suspiciously because he wrote his own article, yet he did not.
• Multiple articles in independent reputable sources make it notable. If you have a band that's a one-hit wonder, do you make an entry for the song, or for the band?
• A conversation among friends does not indicate a conspiracy against you. Nyder's comment on my forum is immaterial (she hasn't even been involved in any of this on Wikipedia to my knowledge).
• I edited Mirsky's entry in Sept 2005 so it was on my watchlist; seeing your name come up on my watchlist in another article is also not proof of a conspiracy against you.
• You are taking all of this too personally. I feel anything I say is going to be viewed through a lens of suspicion, not because it's my site, but because you think I'm orchestrating something. If my friends make valid points, why do their opinions become less worthy because they're my friends? --Spinn 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete or Speedy Delete. Hey, I wrote the original article (actually, expanded it from a stub). It was a decent article on a marginal-but-probably-acceptable web site. I voted to keep it on the original AfD, which was not heavily populated -- 4-1 against, IIRC, including the nominator. I think its too bad it was deleted. BUT. It was deleted properly in-process, and I think we need to respect that. Whether AfD might need reform (e.g., at least n total responses are required, where n=8 or whatever) is an interesting question but not germane to to this case. We need to stand by the principle of stare decicis or we'll never get anything done. In fact, per the nominator, I don't think this should even be here. It is NOT acceptable for Wikipedia to be bullied into revoking a properly placed speedy by out-of-process deletion of properly formed and placed speedy tags, period. The only correct recourse is deletion review (although technically that is only for correction of out-of-process deletions, and this deletion was done properly). I call on the closing admin to take note of my comments and my standing as author of the original article. Herostratus 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (N.B. and FWIW, the original article was not written by anyone associated with the site, it was written by me solely on my own initiative, and I have no formal association and with the site and know no one who does, although I used to post on the forums in years past.) Herostratus 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote, see below. Herostratus 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's true, I think, that the page was legally deleted. But at least one or two of the delete votes were ill-informed, and some folks knowlegeable about the subject had no idea that there was a vote for its deletion until sometime after the vote had finished. Suppose, for example, that a group of people on Wikipedia decided to choose some obscure topic (e.g. Fugue, the musical form), set up a vote for its deletion, and cause the page to get removed. Because few people knowing anything about Fugues would have noticed, the page would get deleted, perhaps for no good reason. Then, if someone said, "Wait a tic... that isn't right..." and put the page back up, would you still feel that it should remain deleted? - TreyVanRiper 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think anyone's bullying; as I said, I think this (third para) was followed properly for its reinstatement (if not right away, at least in summation). Where is the process for removing speedy delete tags, anyway? I wasn't able to find it. The way I read this, I thought it was done correctly. --Spinn 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not a meat puppet - please take a look at my contributions if you doubt that. The page was re-created after an AfD but has improved since its recreation to the point that it is now a much better article: see the diff between the recreated article and the current one. The section on media coverage of the DFC controversy clearly fulfills point 1 of WP:WEB. I can understand the desire to punish those who recreate after an AfD, but in this case the system is working - the originally AfD'd page was not a good article, but the current one is and should be kept. (That is also why speedy deletion was not appropriate here - it was not simple recreation but actual article improvement.) DenisMoskowitz 14:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment man I gotta stop loading this up... I think JD's right that the speedy delete tag was warranted. Your diff is immaterial; he's talking about the difference between when the article was originally deleted and the current version, because someone simply recreated the article with the same content that was deleted. However, after the call for speedy delete, I took the time to read why it was deleted, did some research on standards, and then brought the article into compliance with WP:WEB. This is clear when it's compared to the current answers.com version that JD links. --Spinn 14:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, first off, this is a recreation of a deleted page, albeit with some additional content. secondly, it fails WP:WEB because I don't accept the argument that Dysfunctional Family Circus confers notability back on SpinnWebe. DFC is notable and has it's own article but in all the referenced material about DFC linked in the SpinnWebe article, SpinnWebe is never mentioned, or just linked to the DFC section of the site. Show me an article in a widely read publication that is primarily about SpinnWebe and I'll recondsider, but based on all evidence provided, SpinnWebe is worthy of a mention in the Dysfunctional Family Circus article and that is about it.--Isotope23 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Added a link to an old Internet Underground article. There's a mention in an old issue of The New Yorker, but that's not online; I have a copy at home somewhere, but obviously I couldn't scan it and put it on Wikipedia for copyright reasons. I'll look for it anyway, though, if it'd satisfy your curiosity. --Spinn 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See The New Yorker story referenced above, which is an article about SpinnWebe, not the DFC.Zompist 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me some time to verify. I don't read the New Yorker so it's not like I have back issues lying around, but if indeed there is a full page article on SpinnWebe itself in a back issue that is worthy of consideration.--Isotope23 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Internet Underground was a print magazine published by Ziff-Davis from 1995 to 1997. Doesn't this already address your concern? --Spinn 16:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment No, per WP:WEB criteria 1, I would consider this to be a trivial mention (about one subsection of the website: the Nipple Server). I also need to see mulitiple source mentions per criteria 1 (or 1 feature length article in a well known publication would satisfy me as well, even though I don't think this is explicitly stated in the criteria). I need to see the New Yorker article. I'll try to get out to the Library by my house in the next day or so... should have it on file there.--Isotope23 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I think you're using too broad a definition of "trivial coverage". WP:WEB appears to mean that as: a press release printed in a newspaper is trivial, a magazine printing a list of sites that start with S is trivial. The article is materially about the site, whether it's a section of it or not. I can demonstrate an article on the SpinnWebe Nipple Server in reference X, an article on the SpinnWebe DFC in reference Y. Non-trivial mentions in reputable print publications. Done.

--Spinn 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion you are taking too liberal a reading of "trivial coverage". I consider paragraph blurbs, even if materially about a subject, to be trivial. WP:WEB is a guideline, so it is going to be open to interpretation. Disagreements about guideline interpretations aside though, I think this is largely a moot point since by my count this is currently destined for a No Consensus (default keep).--Isotope23 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per rodii and Zompist. I don't know that SpinnWebe would be worthy of an entry if it had only launched in 2004, but it definitely qualifies as a legitimate piece of Internet history. As for the "get-out-the-vote campaigning is bad faith" argument, all I can say is that now that admins are openly engaging in such campaigns on issues as important as Requests for Adminship, even after the seven-day discussion period has closed, I sure as hell can't knock Spinn for doing it here on a lousy AfD. --Aaron 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am not a meatpuppet, just a loyal fan to a site that should be recognized across the internet. Now that I have seen the true side of you guys running Wikipedia, I don't think your site even deserves to carry a stub about the genuinely historic Spinnwebe.com. Seeing that you guys seem to already have your minds' set on this issue, stubbornly I might add, let me just set the record straight: you're not "Keepers Of The Knowledge" or anything important, you elitist a**holes. You're a backwoods free encyclopedia that will never amount to anything worth remembering in ten years. If you can't follow your own rules, go to hell. --K-Man Time and Date irrelevant.

• LOL, why don't you tell us what you really think K-Man.--Isotope23 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment on this by both sides of the dispute as the admin who closed the original AfD debate. All I will tell you folks is:
  • Assume good faith.
  • Use common sense.
  • Don't be a dick.
  • Please calm down and look at this rationally. Whether this article is kept or deleted matters very little in the long run. Please exercise good judgement, and avoid votestacking (this applies to both sides). Please do not use the two wrongs make a right fallacy to justify any of your actions. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. I think my statement "there's nothing untoward going on here" could've been summarized to Assume good faith if I'd known the term. The very statement that started this AfD assumed bad faith. --Spinn 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "A number of unquestionably notable topics have corresponding web sites with a poor Alexa ranking. For instance, http://www.avrillavigne.com had a traffic ranking of 1,261,091 as of January 27, 2006[5], but nobody would question Avril Lavigne easily warrants an article, and its reasonable to assume the site is visited by more people than indicated by Alexa."[[12]] SpinnWebe does not have to have a low Alexia number to be in wikipedia. Plus that is the current Alexa number, not ones over the past 10 years! This is like checking how many play MUDS[[13]] now and removeing the article because of low interest. (ie it is historical)JohnRussell 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (since I'm not arguing deletion based on traffic rankings etc); your argument is apples and oranges. Avril Lavigne warrents an article regardless of Alexa rankings (et al) because she is notable independant of her website (and would be considered under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. An article on www.avrillavigne.com would probably not survive an AfD though (it would be deleted most likely and content merged to Avril Lavigne. If SpinnWebe were an entity outside of a website, you could apply criteria to that entity that were completely independent of web rankings and other criteria that are traditionally applied to websites. Your point about applying current Alexa rankings in the context of a discussion about the historical value of a site has some validity though, but in that case I would recommend better demonstrating the historical context and value of SpinnWebe in the article.--Isotope23 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep For reasons exhaustively stated by several above. The site is a notable part of 'net history and shouldn't be judged by alexa rankings or yahoo hits. Current popularity levels are not relevant.--Notmydesk 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Regardless of procedural concerns, the article itself clearly qualifies under WP:WEB for the New Yorker and Internet Underground write-ups alone. --Lore Sjoberg 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I apologize if I did violate the "don't be a dick" policy, in particular to Spinn (though in all fairness, others going around make 'snide' comments to me clearly violate 'don't be a dick' and I don't think I was to out of line considering the sheer numbers of users from the site who came to recreated the article and halt the deletion process). However, the fact is that the speedy was improperly removed and the page that was deleted was identical to this one. I'll just wait to see what the outcome of this is. P.S This is the longest afd page I've ever seen.--Jersey Devil 19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why do you keep saying the current page is identical to the one that was removed, when it is quite easy to demonstrate this is false using the answers.com link you provided? --Spinn 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I just mean the one that was c&ped, before you made the new changes. The references make the article look better, the Wired article mentions you and the site but solely in the context of the DFC. It seems that the only notablity that the website really has is regarding the DFC, so why not just merge this article with the DFC article? Or just make Spinnwebe redirect to the DFC page as it already has a lot of info about Spinnwebe's relationship with it. Also, it would help the argument to have a link to the New Yorker piece (though, I understand that since it was created so long ago it would be difficult to find). Simply stating that it was cited in the New Yorker doesn't help because we can not verify it.--Jersey Devil 20:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment "the one...before you made the new changes." Then you are arguing a previous version should be deleted, not the current one. Even if I find my old copy of this magazine, I am at a loss how I can present it to you, since scanning it and uploading it to Wikipedia would most probably violate copyright. I (and others) tell you it is there, and if you assume bad faith, then yes, you can't accept it as a reference. Even if I scanned it and mailed it to you personally to satisfy your doubt, then the reference would still hold the same weight for another editor two years from now. I am not sure, then, how any printed, offline material can be taken as a reference. --Spinn 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The New Yorker is readily available on a complete DVD set; I have it, and checked the issue in question. It's a short article; but 1. it's the New Yorker, man; how much coverage has Wikipedia gotten in the New Yorker? 2. it's not like it's one entry in a long list; the magazine at that time singled out one website every two weeks for notice. In effect, it's a judgment that it's one of the two dozen notable websites for that year. Zompist 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think SpinnWebe is notable. On the other hand, the Dysfunctional Family Circus article itself completely addresses the importance of the site. Let me come up with an analogy to demonstrate:

Suppose "Weird Al" Yankovic, known worldwide for his numerous song parodies, had instead made exactly one high-profile parody song in his lifetime. Would he get a mention in that song's article? Of course. Would he get his own article? Probably not. Cdcon 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think my previous comment on one-note wonders addresses this. (And the other referenced non-DFC articles make it moot.) --Spinn 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Cdcon got it exactly right. As I stated, the Wired article mentions Spinnwebe solely in the context of the DFC. The role of Spinnwebe on DFC is already mentioned in the DFC article. On it's own merits, Spinnwebe alone does not warrant an article. This no longer has anything to do with the process of deletion.--Jersey Devil 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What about the Internet Underground citation? That mentions spinnwebe and the Nipple Server, not the DFC. And the New Yorker article -- though it hasn't yet surfaced here, it has been independently verified and does, in fact, exist -- mentions spinnwebe specifically. Are those just being discounted now?--Notmydesk 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. "Recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe, attempts to delete it by speedy means are being thwarted by meatpuppets, perhaps listing on AfD will stop them. --Ruby 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" This seems to me like an editor/admin bias as there is no "organized group" trying to keep it alive, just a lot of people interested in the site and want to see it's article stay because of notability (and giveing good reasons why it should). JohnRussell 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• The article Spinnwebe was duly deleted by consensus, therefore the re-creation SpinnWebe should be deleted, and if next month there is a Spinn-webe or a Spinwebe they should be deleted too. --Ruby 23:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• You are again implying bad faith (as if the name change was some sneaky trick to avoid deletion, rather than a correction). Please stop. --Spinn 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Spinn, why don't you just admit you are the Antichrist!? I heard you assassinated Bobby Kennedy! rodii 23:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endomion, it's good to know that your stated position (that a website with an 11 year history should be deleted as non-notable, regardless of verifiable sources) won't ever be changed by any additional facts, research or other opinions. However, I don't think your position is in harmony with Wikipedia policy or philosophy. KWH 22:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• My reason was non-notability for deleting Spinnwebe and it is for re-creating deleted material in the case of SpinnWebe. --Ruby 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Spinn, how does Scribs, your webcomic warrant an article? It was launched less than a year ago and has nothing to do with DFC.--Jersey Devil 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While I attempt to keep my annoyance in check, tell me why this is germane in any way to the SpinnWebe AfD. --Spinn 21:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • what the... What does Scribs have to do with anything? I don't see any mention of it here. Is it made of wood? Does it float? Burn him! --innocent bystander
  • Comment Jersey Devil is apparently continuing to confuse this issue with yet more innuendo. Although his inclusion of the link to that page here helped me to find it, so I could vote on it. I have to say, as someone relatively new to all this, I'm finding this particular AfD process anger-evoking, and it will likely influence my condinued participation on Wikipedia. I wish Mr. Devil would focus his efforts on the merits of a page, and less on procedure. This is a fine example of someone who stares at the finger pointing to the moon. -- TreyVanRiper 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I too am finding the continuing innuendo about cabals and conspiracies tiresome, and now going from SpinnWebe to Scribs is looking an awful lot like score-settling. JD, seriously, take a step back, it's only a website. · rodii · 21:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it does meet WP:WEB, and IMHO, being the home of DFC alone gives it a passing grade. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm dismayed that someone thought this was even close to meeting CSD, too. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The CSD made sense at the time. Long story. If you really care, I could tell you elsewhere. But trust me, you don't really care. --Spinn 22:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, the site was known primarily for the Disfunctional Family Circus, and yes, the DFC is no longer around - however, it has other well-known features, especially the webcomic Scribs. I agree that the Scribs article and the Spinnwebe section of the DFC article should be merged with the main Spinnwebe article.Stev0 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep KWH below gave enough cites, plus the one in New Yorker -- to meet criteria #1. Articles about web sites in the 1990s? History. Anyways, it's not like we're wasting any paper here. Keep. Sholom 05:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope23. I have (and have read) the New Yorker article in question, via The Complete New Yorker DVD set, and while it does focus on the site as a whole and not just DFC, it is a very short capsule review, and so far as I can tell, the only significant mention of the site in major media that is not about DFC. Let's face it: SpinnWebe was, and is, notable pretty much only for DFC, and DFC has its own, very comprehensive, article. MCB 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - So we have thoroughly established that the only thing that Wikipedia should tell future generations about this site is that it hosted the extremely notable DFC, is that right? Any other detail of its 11 year history must be expunged as pure advertisement, yes? KWH 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This isn't a discussion, it's a circus. I don't see any attempt to build consensus here -- just a lot of back and forth argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of links or a place where everyone should get their particular pet project mentioned. That's why I said the original article was "not encyclopedic": it appeared to be just a page to promote Spinnwebe and to ensure that they're represented on Wikipedia. Since this particular tempest in a teapot has been ignited, the current article on Spinnwebe has actually improved somewhat, to a point where it shows some notability. (Not a lot in today's current Web environment, but the DFC flap makes it notable in a historic context.) I'm not entering a keep vote here -- just urging a little bit of sanity. Otherwise, some administrator will just close this AfD with a result of "no consensus." --Elkman 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• comment umm, SpinnWebe is not really a webcomic, it is a website. JohnRussell 03:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, but the webcomics wikiproject also keeps track of web sites that host webcomics. It's a borderline case, but it's likely Scribs will get merged into this article, which is why I added it to our tracking. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and while I'm here - very strong keep from someone who's not a meatpuppet. DS 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• comment I can't help but notice that the meatpuppets who want this deleted are the same ones who want The Brunching Shuttlecocks article deleted, too. Assuming, of course, they are indeed separate people. Stev0 15:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Someone mentioned it up above, but if a band has a one hit wonder, do you write an article for the song or the band or both? Personally I don't care that much, but it should be one article and the other should be redirect. Reading through these comments, it seems that DFC is the most and possibly only notable thing about the site. Maybe have a section on the DFC page on other works by the same author? - Hahnchen 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment you mean like these:

1. Los Del Rio - "Macarena" (1996)
2. Soft Cell - "Tainted Love" (1982)
3. Dexys Midnight Runners - "Come On Eileen" (1982)
4. Right Said Fred - "I'm Too Sexy" (1991)
5. Toni Basil - "Mickey" (1982)
6. Baha Men - "Who Let the Dogs Out?" (2000)
7. Vanilla Ice - "Ice Ice Baby" (1990)
8. a-ha - "Take On Me" (1985)
9. Gerardo - "Rico Suave" (1991)
10. Nena - "99 Luftballons" (1984)

JohnRussell 15:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete CSD G4, failing that, Delete. You people have logorrhea. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I'll propose this as a possible way forward here:

1. Everyone calm down :)
2. We acknowledge that process was, if not outright violated, at least a little bit bent by the recreation of the article
3. We acknowledge that there is at least an argument to be made for the notability of this site
4. The article be deleted without prejudice, and that interested parties be allowed to create a spanky new article (or merge the information into the DFS article if they choose)
5. If the article is recreated, it should be judged on its own merits and not on the history of the current article or the personalities involved

Does that seem feasible? That way the process is respected, but separated from concerns about the encyclopedicity of the information. I realize it's a pain in the ass for those who don't think it should have been nominated in the first place, but it's an attempt to find some common ground. rodii 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would resist this, only because essentially the same information would be added and the same discussion would ensue. What you're essentially saying is that "let's consider if the article should be written better." --Spinn 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Spinn's concern but I don't think it's reason to resist. Rodii has accurately noticed that the complaint of the deletionists is primarily "abuse of process" (AfD double-jeopardy, Meatpuppets, etc.); very few have made arguments against its notability. This needs a substantially clean slate. I don't usually hang out at AfD but when I saw this article and deletion debate mentioned on some user page it brought me to the realization that Wikipedia fails to impart much of the richness of the early history of the Web, which I think is a form of systemic bias based on the fact that web content is so ephemeral (and possibly the rise of a younger userbase, which is making me feel old). IMHO DFC, 1-900-ZWEBLÖ and IADL were some of the earliest examples of participatory humorous sites in the vein of Fark, SomethingAwful, etc. SpinnWebe is right there in my own memory with Justin Hall's links.net. (And I'm also amazed to find that so little is written in that article on the "founding father of personal blogging".) As such, Spinn - I think if you check your notes and ask some of your oldest fans to reminisce a bit I think we can find some additional facts and citations which can accurately portray the historicity and notability of this site in a new article. KWH 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh. This discussion isn't specifically about whether the article is well-written, but whether it should continue to exist. In my opinion, WP:WEB clearly says yes.

Actually, I take that back. This discussion is specifically about whether there's a Rough consensus to delete, and I think it's clear that there isn't. --Spinn 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting case. Several people, from Jimbo on down, have noted at times that AfD has problems, and this case is a good a example. It is, however, understandable. There is a lot of Wikipedia:vanispamcruftisment produced every day, and people are busy. I second the suggestion the simply delete without prejudice and list on deletion review. Yes that's a pain in the butt and seems like beauracratic niggling. But the thing is, precedent. There are lots of entries of the my web site/my 8-person company/my and my buddies garage band/our 6-member games forum/my boyfriend etc. variety deleted every single day. The last thing anyone wants is for anyone to get the idea that they have some basis for recreating these without going thru deletion review because, hey, SpinnWebe. There is a marginal but valid case for taking this to deletion review. In fact, why wait -- why don't you take the original article to deletion review now? Herostratus 14:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because deletion review is for procedural errors in deletion, and I don't see any. It was originally deleted according to Wikipedia procedure, and again, it was reinstated according to Wikipedia procedure.

I see no risk of creating precedent, either. If My And My Buddies Garage Band was deleted, and then later reinstated with references to its Rolling Stone review, then I see no problem with that. --Spinn 15:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, affiliated with Zompist.com's bulletin board. Wiwaxia 09:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, see my comments above. Leth
• Keep. Changing my vote to Keep.
  1. OK OK OK. This was deleted in-process but I think that it would be valid to list on deletion review, on the grounds that none of the delete votes refuted or even made reference to the Keep arguments, and the Delete arguments consisted mainly of "non-notable, delete". Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is supposed to be a discussion, and the Keep side "won" the discussion, therefore a case could be made that the closing admin erred in not relisting or keeping the AfD open. Even if one holds that only the votes made after the Keep side had completed its arguments could be expected to address those arguments, that brings the "vote" down to 3-1 against at best (including the nominator), and it could be argued that that is not a quorum.
  2. If this were to be listed on deletion review, I think the "keep" arguments would win the day, as (IMO) they have done here. So why go through all that -- let's just consider this thread to be a deletion review, and let the closing admin treat it as such.
  3. OK, yes, the article was deleted in-process (marginally), and yes the speedy-delete tags shouldn't have been removed, and yes this discussion should be taking place at deletion review, and yes this would be a bad precedent. But let's not be total process geeks here, the bottom line is that the article was deleted too quickly more-or-less by mistake and should be kept. As to setting precedent, people are not gonna remember this thread a week from now let alone point to it as a precedent. I think that just this once it would make sense to make an exception. (Perhaps as penance for all this spinn could be sentenced to community service writing the article List of people who have swallowed a live squid or whatever...) Herostratus 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This has lots of verification, which makes me wonder why we are even thinking about deleting it. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. My proposal was an attempt to find some kind of middle ground between the deleters and keepers. In the event it seems the keepers have carried the debate, and I'm happy to withdraw the proposal. ·  rodii  ·  02:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It has been a week, what is the next action to be taken? JohnRussell 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

(add new comments above here)

[edit] Verifiable Citations

• Pegoraro, Rob. "CLICK: HTTP://WWW.SPINNWEBE.COM/NIPPLE", The Washington Post, June 19, 1997.

The "Nipple Server" sounds like something that should be banned by the Communications Decency Act, but this curious exercise in Web creativity is much weirder than anything our congressbeings could imagine. Every weekday morning, page author Greg Galcik has been aiming a Casio digital camera at his left breast, firing and uploading the image to his site. Viewers are then requested to rate the day's specimen from 0 to 10 on "Color," "Perkiness," "Panache" and the vague category "Overall nipplish quality." (Fortunately -- or unfortunately -- there's nothing that special to see. No wacky piercings or anything.) Galcik explained earlier this year that the site's no big deal to his parents or his wife, as "they know what kind of weirdo I am."

• A capsule review of Spinn's version of DFC, compiled from some wire service, was published in the following newspapers between September 24 and 27 1999:
  • The Kansas City Star
  • Spokesman-Review, The
  • Star-Ledger, The (Newark, NJ)
  • Telegraph Herald
  • Houston Chronicle
  • Journal Star
  • Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer
  • St. Petersburg Times
  • State, The (Columbia, SC)
  • Sun-Sentinel
  • The Cincinnati Post
  • Ventura County Star (CA)
  • Vero Beach Press Journal (FL)

"Family Circus" creator Bil Keane is worried about a less-than- wholesome parody of his kid-friendly comic on the Web. Keane said last week he was mildly amused by the "Dysfunctional Family Circus" when it began five years ago, but then his readers started to complain. The Web site - SpinnWebe, maintained by Greg Galcik - uses Keane's cartoons while allowing site visitors to make up the captions. The results are often sarcastic or dark humor and, predictably, sometimes obscene and pornographic, Keane said. King Features, which syndicates Keane's comic, and Keane's attorney sent Galcik a letter last week threatening legal action unless he removed references to Keane's work.

• Houck, Jeff. "THE TGIF THERMOMETER - DOT.COM", The Palm Beach Post, June 4, 1999.

Another review of Spinn's DFC.

• "LOOKING FOR A FEW LAUGHS? TOUR ON-LINE CARTOON SITES", The Charlotte Observer July 9, 1996.

Another review of Spinn's DFC, together with reviews of Dilbert and some other early online comics.

• "CYBERSCENE - Aaron' comic strip has its own Web site - Comic `Adventures' wow Web-sters", Boston Herald, May 17, 1996.

Another review of Spinn's DFC.

KWH 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(don't comment here, add new comments above the beginning of this subsection.)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect, no consensus to delete. Chick Bowen 18:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Park Street

It's a short street in Boston, Massachusetts. That's pretty much it. Delete as street-cruft. Calton | Talk 02:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy per "it does not pass anything of note". lol, that's too good. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The only reason any Bostonian has ever heard of this street is they've changed trains in the station located beneath it. Fan1967 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom --djrobgordon 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep wassup with that? we have Bank Street --CyclePat 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Bank Street? What part of the word "major" in that article escaped you? --Calton | Talk 07:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is every city in every city supposed to get a listing? No way! Travislangley 06:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "The subway stop is one of the most famous in the world.". So why not give it its own article, rather than the street upon which it is situated? Why is it so famous? This article seems a little incoherent.  (aeropagitica)  07:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• "The Common is bounded by Tremont St., Park St.,..." The corner of Park and Tremont has not only the red line but also the tourist shed with all the brochures and a couple friendly tourist welcomers. This corner is the start of the Freedom Trail. So yes, the article bad and Delete is what should be done to it. Metarhyme 08:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As the article stands, nothing convinces me it is more important than any random street. I could be convinced otherwise if the article gave me a reason to be interested in it. --Cymsdale 09:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect as Bikeable suggests. --Cymsdale 10:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, a strip of tarmac is not inherently encyclopaedic. Proto||type 11:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn street. Just any ordinary street, nothing notable nor special. --Terence Ong 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Park Street (MBTA station). The street itself is not particularly notable, but the subway station is perhaps the best known in the city. bikeable (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge and redirect. Academic Challenger 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as Bikeable suggests (good catch, man!). Most heavily-trafficked intersection in entire Boston subway system; appears in an HP Lovecraft story, too. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - was user test. -- RHaworth 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Posting

unencyclopedic DVD+ R/W 02:45, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Hart-Gilliams

• Delete - Another of the Melissa Joan Hart family member pages. Her only roles are minor roles in shows related to her half-sister Melissa. In every way non-notable. rydia 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. She does have an entry on Rotten Tomatoes but it is very minimal. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Frühstücksdienst 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She has more IMDB credits than a lot of people listed. Travislangley 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Four bit parts? Well, son, bring out those other articles with fewer credits and I'll AfD them right away.
• Delete Wikipedia is not IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not IMDB Lite - lol. 13:43, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Parkinson

Delete. It's a vanity page... not needed in the Wikipedia Walksonwalls 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable bio. Bobby1011 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing notable. VirtualSteve 06:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Doesn't this article discuss two different people of the same name? How can someone be an academic in Yorkshire and run a computer shop in Cornwall simultaneously? Why would an academic need to do this? In either case, the biography(-ies) appear to be non-notable.  (aeropagitica)  07:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio and vanity. --Terence Ong 08:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, two non-notable biographies. JIP | Talk 12:29, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ewa Sonnet

I don't know. Just doesn't seem as notable as the article would like me to believe. James084 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Monkeyman^(talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 1,200,000 google hits. Must be notable in some context Bobby1011 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bobby and her seven incoming links from articles not created by the same person. NickelShoe 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Please note that porn producers and promoters spam search engines, thus skewing any results in the favor (and, by extension, rendering the Google test impotent). If you would note this search using the term "Ewa Sonnet" (with quotes), you shall see that Google only goes up to 500 (out of 770,000+!) search results, deeming the rest to be duplicates! And most of the "valid" results were nonsense without any true substance. you will see that a good chunk of the links are web cruft without substance. However, as I said, most porn producers create dummy websites to puff up the importance of their "product". For instance, sites may have meta tags with "Ewa Sonnet" in them, without having anything to do with that subject. While I thank Adrian for the correction, my vote shall stay the same. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC) -- Stricken by Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} at 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
• Delete as per Joe Beaudoin. Bobby1011 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The rest are not duplicates. Google also only goes up to 500 or so for Microsoft. It's just the way it works, and has no real bearing on the remainder of the results, for your purposes. Please, please, pretty please, stop citing this at AfD : ) . — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sigh Ok, then. Now that I believe that I am informed about what I am saying, keep it. Thanks Adrian. Bobby1011 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep , I suppose. Per Adrian. Cyde Weys 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No more notable than those hot teenage cheerleaders who are always emailing me. Monicasdude 06:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable within the genre. 23skidoo 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If the Google test is skewed for porn, then it's skewed for anything else that gets link-farmed. That's a pretty slippery slope that you want to shove us down. - CorbinSimpson 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per 23skidoo --Godtvisken 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per 23skidoo --GenericTSS 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. New material added which increases the richness of the subject considerably. briankaz 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep Noteable within the porn industry, especially within her specific genre. There are other well known porn stars on Wiki, this one is no different. She also has a music career which equally deserves a Wiki entry. The359 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I can't think of any real reasons to keep it, other than further broadening the knowledge base, I do know that "I don't know...just seems...like me to believe" are pretty limp wristed premises for any arguement. I'd hate to see any worthwhile contribution thrown to the wayside by such a weak argument. Dodint 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep She is far from a normal internet pornstar. She is at worst a nude model, and has not performed or pretended any sexual acts for stills or video. Her budding singing career somewhat parallels the progression seen by other models who have seeked to become more, and she has already been featured in major mainstream Polish media. Dismissing her now for no good reason is a bit absurd.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.246.87 (talk • contribs).

• Strongly Keep She is far from a normal anything. She is one of a kind. Don't be distracted by the boobs! We have yet to see even close to the full range of her talents. briankaz 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - she has a music video. It is hard for USians/UKians to judge some criteria at WP:MUSIC but per this page she has been interviewed on "best known and most popular Kuba Wojewodzki Show. It's gonna be seen by over 4 million people o next sunday at 10:25 pm of Polish time at the biggest Warsaw private TV station" which would seem to come close to "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio [TV?] network." KWH 03:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. Seems somewhat notable per WP:MUSIC. Page needs serious work, however. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:12, 28 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 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athens Hardcore

Deprodded. I vote Delete for being a non-notable, self-explanitory neologism.

• Delete Obvious nelogism. --djrobgordon 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. It isn't even an neologism to my way of thinking. Bobby1011 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless. Travislangley 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to discuss a musical movement, fans thereof or anything else of note.  (aeropagitica)  07:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism, no meaningful content. And it isn't even in Athens. JIP | Talk 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yeah because Socrates did not do too well when he was with Bill and Ted. Yeah, non-notable. Croat Canuck 04:47, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brunching Shuttlecocks

Defunct humor website that does not claim any recognition or awards, and it is now impossible to verify traffic --Ruby 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete as the notability is almost impossible to gauge making it unverifiable. Bobby1011 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable humor site. — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it was exceptionally notable in its time. Although some digging needs to be done to provide verification of this. Proto||type 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real humour site, I used to visit this a lot. JIP | Talk 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this was notable when it was around. Consider seeing if anything is preserved at Internet Archive. Thryduulf 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's lots. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.brunching.com indeed has a bunch of stuff. Good call Thryduulf. Proto||type 13:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to use the Internet Archive, the Brunching site itself still has full archives. DenisMoskowitz 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable humour site, with notable offshoots. Possibly merge offshoots into this page, though. Percy Snoodle 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable site. DenisMoskowitz 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pending a complete top-to-bottom rewrite. I agree it's a piece of notable net history, but the article as it stands is in essence a List of old Brunching Shuttlecocks section names with some spamvertising tossed in at the bottom. --Aaron 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest be added? I added a note about the publication of the Book of Ratings. I could put in some claims about "everybody knew about this site back in the day" but that's not very verifiable. (Though the fact that 3 years after closing it's still the top Google hit for both "brunching" and "shuttlecocks" is some indication of how heavily it has been linked to.) DenisMoskowitz 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, undoubtably notable. I still remember half the lyrics to the Bjork song. — ciphergoth 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is not impossible to verify traffic. See [14], which compares traffic of Brunching Shuttlecocks with Modern Humorist, a humor site of similar popularity that has a Wikipedia article. Nohat 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Highly notable site. Random House made part of it into a book[15]. I'd call that recognition.--Notmydesk 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, it spawned a message board that is still very active. — User:Serendipity 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Leading humor site in its day and still available as archive even if not being updated. If this article did not exist, articles on the current careers of Lore Fitzgerald Sjöberg and Dave Nielsen would have to reproduce the same material. Sergeirichard 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it might be gone now but in its day was definitely notable. Deserves an encyclopedia entry. -Big Smooth 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, yup, as so many others here say, this site clearly was famous and influential. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: IIRC, I originally found out about the website after reading about it in Newsweek. Ardric47 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ciphergoth. Ooh Bjork, Bjork.... ♫ squell 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The site is still readable (and enjoyable, in my pov); it spawned other sites like bookofratings.com. To delete it because it isn't being added to is like deleting the article on Shakespeare because he isn't writing any new plays. Stev0 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: one of the absolute top comedy sites of its time. And since the current anti-website crusaders like to pummel sites with Alexa, note that it's still in the top 100,000 today, three years after it stopped updating. Zompist 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per notmydesk. Or were you created from butter and cork? · rodii · 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It was very noteworthy at the time, and the entire archives are still available, though the search engine seems to be broken. Maverick 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

• Keep though I'm biased, Lore being a friend of a friend. Georgewilliamherbert 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though I'm biased as well. I gave Lore a ride to an ATM once. --Elkman 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fairly notable when it was active, IIRC. Herostratus 05:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hbackman 03:53, 28 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. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer jargon

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst

• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I don't know of any more useful list articles on the Wiki. This AFD nom puzzles me, sad to say. PJM 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is very useful and encyclopedic content. Cyde Weys 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide, then this has to go. Travislangley 06:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup This article discusses acronyms such as ENIAC, which form part of computing history alongside RTFM, which is computer slang. The article might be more useful if the two could be seperated in order to make it clear precisely what is being discussed.  (aeropagitica)  07:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename as a Glossary and rewrite to match style of some existing glossaries on Wikipedia, which is clearly authorized at WP:NOT - and to Frühstücksdienst... it's more like vice-versa. I can't imagine that you are not being purposely facetious with that comment. Our goal with Wikipedia is to create something useful, not to see how closely we can follow policy. You're completely backwards. KWH 03:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A list of computer jargon is not a definition, nor is it slang or idiom. If there are disputes about what does, or doesn't belong in the article, they can be resolved on the discussion page. Such a list is useful and violate no wiki policy. pat8722 14:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft... transwiki to wikisource if anyone is interested in keeping this content and link it off the Computer article.--Isotope23 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Eskog: misinterpreting WP:NOT. — squell 02:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with all jargon AfD's I've seen lately. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody suggested transwikiing this to Wiktionary. I do agree with others that WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide was mis-applied in the nom's rush to make a WP:POINT by listing all of these jargon guides. It should be noted (to pat8722 and others) that WP:WINAD prohibits not only dicdefs, but lists of such defs. I think KWH's idea of cleaning this up into a gloassary is sound, but don't think a transwiki to wiktionary would hurt anything. No vote. --Karnesky 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as the subject of computer jargon is perfectly acceptable, but the current contents and scope of the article are not. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep assuming it gets a major cleanup. If it doesn't get cleaned up, I recommend a Computer Jargon category.

Stev0 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Acronyms are not really slang or idioms — Michigan user 17:38, 27 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. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of baseball jargon

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as useful reference as decided three months ago. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A useful and well established article. PJM 04:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - And maybe the guideline should be changed for eminently notable exceptions. Cyde Weys 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As I said before, likely nominated by someone who hates baseball. Wahkeenah 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That one user, with the German name which roughly translates as "Breakfast service", has marked several of the Jargon pages the same way, so evidently he wants to make toast of these pages. In fact, since August he/she/it has contributed nothing [16] except requests for deletion. Wahkeenah 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I mainly edit under another name, since I don't want to get into deletion wars. Frühstücksdienst 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I reckon you deserve some points for admitting to being a sockpuppet. Wahkeenah 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for violation. This should be a CATEGORY, not an article in and of itself. Travislangley 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously useful glossary. Change the policy. Bhoeble 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep An essential part of Wikipedia's coverage of baseball, or of any other sport with lots of terminology (which is probably all of them). ReeseM 12:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And I say you are picking on these things for personal reasons. Wahkeenah 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Transwiki to wikisource and link to baseball if anyone is interested in keeping this content (and I think it is useful content; just not encyclopedic article material).--Isotope23 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Who says what is an encyclopedia? I say this is a valuable part of encyclopedic coverage of baseball. Golfcam 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful for people like me who don't know about baseball. squell 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Transwiki Baseball Slang should be added to the list, but the whole thing is better suited to be a Wiktionary *

appendix. --Karnesky 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As I responded on another AfD, we can make interwiki links. Any wikipedia article which referenced this would still point to the article on Wiktionary. It would be just as useful there, and may be a better fit with the intent and policies of that wiki than this one. --Karnesky 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, honestly, the information is useful, encyclopeadic, and better done as a collection that as individual articles. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of baseball jargon

Nomination on the grounds that this is a slang or usage guide, in violation of WP:NOT. While an article about baseball jargon as a whole is acceptable, this is a list of jargon terms, not an article about the jargon as a whole. Note that the exceptions in WP:NOT 1.2.3 only apply to clarifying meaning when jargon is used in an article about something else (not the case here) or "special cases" about "an essential piece of slang" (not the case here) don't protect it. Informative and interesting, certainly (at least to some people), but that is not enough to excuse the fact that this is a list of definitions, not an article. The Literate Engineer 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep Seems like a spiteful nomination (or at least done purely out of principal), as I cited this basball article article as an example in another AfD discussion. Sorry baseball fans... I had no idea it would get this reaction. As for why to keep this article... it falls clearly under WP:NOT 1.5.2 which allows for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. This provides extensive commentary and more importantly links to many baseball articles, and it cleraly helps to organize them. I guess I'll stop citing articles I actually care about as examples... --W.marsh 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I accept that this wasn't done out of spite thanks to communication from the nom. --W.marsh 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see that communication anywhere here. How's about posting it so we can see what this wiki-nanny's reasoning was, and why he thinks this is less encyclopedic than lists of Penthouse Pets? Wahkeenah
    • It's on my talk page and his. But please don't make personal attacks... The Literate Engineer just happens to have a different opinion than me (and apparently you). --W.marsh 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, he personally attacked this page, so he has it coming. I'd like to know why he thinks this page is any less worthy than the others I've mentioned. But I don't expect an explanation, because their type also deems the rest of us to be part of the Great Unwashed. Wahkeenah 02:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's got to be a nomination by someone who hates baseball or regards it as unworthy. Why pick on baseball and not attack lists of Playboy Playmates and other such "encyclopedic" data??? Wahkeenah 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. An excellent article. Durova 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like a useful article to me. --Bachrach44 03:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. WP:NOT 1.2.3 is in my opinion to stop articles on singular slang terms, not for lists like did. - Andre Engels 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Andre Engels. Useful list. It helps writing baseball articles considerably easier because now some terms can be used without repeatedly explaining them. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments Herostratus 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep useful to baseball fans and those who want to understand them --Rogerd 15:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical jargon

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. No offense to nom. This subject goes way beyond simple slang and is a well established article. PJM 03:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is neither a definition, nor is it about slang or idiom. It is a useful index of mathmetical jargon. Non-topic competent editors should know better than to make proposals for deletion, or to vote thereon. I would ask you to retract your votes on the basis that you are not topic-competent. pat8722 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Mathematical jargon is more than simply an idiosyncratic verbalization of otherwise expressible concepts; it is the means by which mathematicians express those concepts at all. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, in particular the exception enunciated in point 3. I also second pat8722 regarding the lack of evidence that either Frühstücksdienst or Hetar has any mathematical expertise. In fact, both of them seem to specialize in participating in or initiating AfD proposals more than anything else. Ryan Reich 04:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep --Terence Ong 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong, speedy keep per remarks above. Very useful, verifiable, and encyclopedic. dbtfz^talk 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I am tempted to speedy keep this, the rules as I interpret it do not allow it. However, it seems from comments here that this article is very useful to the mathemeticians amongst us.Capitalistroadster 05:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete for violation. This should be a CATEGORY, not an article in and of itself. Travislangley 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of the listings don't merit their own articles, so a category won't do, in my opinion. Plus we already have Category:Mathematical terminology. dbtfz^talk 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per Ryan Reich's reasons above. Gandalf61 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article could do with some expansion (something on origins would be good, for example, but we need to avoid original research of course) but has potential. Waggers 09:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking at all these "not a dictionary" AfDs looks like Wikipedia is occasionally a slang/idiom guide. Not making a value judgement here; just noting that maybe the official policy is somewhat lacking in its spirit or wording. Weregerbil 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unsourced and thus not verifiable. The statement that these particular phrases are not technical terms but are designed to "distinguish the insider from the neophyte," currently rests entirely on the authority of the article's editors. Because it is unsourced, it is difficult for the reader to verify which entries are accurate. For example, I say that "back-of-the-envelope" is an example of an inaccurate entry; it is used by physicists and engineers, not mathematicians. But since no source is given, you have no way to judge whether I, or the article, is the more trustworthy. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a claim's being unsourced implies that it is unverifiable. It seems to me that missing sources are a ground for improving the article (e.g. by adding sources), not deleting it. Claims like "mathematicians use iff to mean if and only if" are easily verifiable, even if they are not currently sourced. Moreover, some things are so easily verifiable that it seems downright silly to source them. For example, if I state in an article that Washington D.C. is the capital of the U.S., do I really need to provide a source for this claim? In short, it seems that there may be a risk of being over-vigilant about verifiability requiring claims to be sourced, to the point of actually decreasing the quality of Wikipedia. dbtfz^talk 19:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Corrected my own words: I don't think we can be over-vigilant about verifiability, properly understood. dbtfz^talk 20:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The verifiability policy says "This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." It is the source that is verifiable, not the truth of the claim. The policy says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source." Obviously if you have not cited any source at all, then you have not cited a reputable source.
      • You should sign your comments. The verifiability policy is also clearly not talking about jargon, but about "facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments", which do not include jargon. There exists a style guide encouraging definitions of jargon terms, as I mention below, and pretty clearly implies that the jargon is considered as auxiliary to the main encyclopedic content. If you like, you may think of this page as the collection of all explanations that would otherwise have to be inserted parenthetically into all the other math articles when these terms, which only mathematicians understand, are used. And if they were inserted there I doubt you would ask for them to be sourced. Ryan Reich 07:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The verifiability of this article, which concerns a topic of broad, common knowledge to those for whom its subject is interesting or useful, is in the assent of its readers to the claims it makes. For such topics a source is unlikely to be found, yet the verifiability of common knowledge is not in doubt (as long as it is presented by a member of the group to which it is common). Using the same principle you invoke, one could argue that no clarification of documented fact is acceptable in the encyclopedia. This page documents clarifications of terms that can be found in virtually every mathematical document published in the last century (in English, anyway). It is a reference, not an opinion piece. Ryan Reich 01:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Where, in the verifiability policy, does it say anything like "the verifiability of common knowledge is not in doubt (as long as it is presented by a member of the group to which it is common?" Where does it say that anything in Wikipedia can stand solely on the authority of its contributors? The policy says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source" and calls the policy "non-negotiable" and says it cannot be superseded "by editors' consensus." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Since you ask, it states in Wikipedia:Explain jargon that we should do just that: explain jargon. It does not mention the necessity of rigorously citing sources for the jargon, and I interpret this to mean that the intention of the policy is to encourage authors to define terms which are not standard English but which are standard in the context they are used, according to the authors' understanding of the usage. In fact, it encourages the creation of an article such as this one. Ryan Reich 06:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - DavidWBrooks 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful and relevant. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP. Dmharvey 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as useful, relevant and encyclopeadic. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. That being said, Dpbsmithb has a point. The intro makes claims which match my graduate school experience. I believe that the same can be said of almost any English-speaking mathematician; but I don't know it. I don't see how anyone can know it without having talked to a sizable and random sample. Let us either find a sociologist of mathematics who has done the necessary research, or edit to what we rigorously know. Septentrionalis 03:14, 28 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. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poker jargon

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: You misterpret the rule here; it is meant to keep wikipedia from being cluttered with individual entries about words that aren't of general interest. But a single article on the technical jargon of a specific field of study is entirely appropriate and useful, and indeed necessary for many fields. LDC 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Highly notable and useful to many. PJM 03:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's not about slang or idiom, it's about public information on a topic of interest to many. pat8722 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not a slang or idiom guide. --Terence Ong 05:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 06:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per PJM -- Arnzy | Talk 08:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful glossary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. --Karnesky 06:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful and relevant. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Strrange nomination as the cited passage clearly states such a page is useful. Obviously the article also allows us to not have dozens of minor articles on concepts that otherwise can be better explained in a context. 2005 09:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly useful. And. There are many many pages like it on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - incredibly useful page, also highly referenced (see What links here). Essexmutant 10:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's a very handy guide.--Mike Selinker 16:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per LDC. Many of the terms explained in this article are used in other articles on Wikipedia. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep this is an article about poker jargon with lots of examples, not many articles about individual poker terms. —siroχo 11:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. -- MSchmahl 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a useful index to poker players. Hynca-Hooley 18:08, 28 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, though there does seem to be a general feeling that something should be done, such as a merge or a partial transwiki or something. -Splash^talk 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball slang

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's a huge slice of culture and the article is well established. PJM 04:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and stop misusing WP:WINAD. Cyde Weys 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• comment: I like this article. It's cute and informative. To the point. I however wonder if it should not be a candidate for transwiki to wiktionnary? --CyclePat 04:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

should it be merged with List of baseball jargon --CyclePat 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator does not seem to be misusing WP:WINAD but applying it appropriately. The problem seems to be with WINAD itself, which needs further explanation. If wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide, if wikipedia is not a dictionary, why are lists such as these appropriate on WP rather than being moved to Wiktionary? It seems to be because there will usually be enough people who will vote keep, regardless of the policy. I'll also add that I don't understand the difference between List of baseball jargon and Baseball slang; I take it there is one, but it could use further explication. Schizombie 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I believe the distinction here is that List of baseball jargon deals with more-or-less the argot or "technical terms" (if you will) within the sport itself; Baseball slang deals with those said terms that have crept into common usage as idiomatic expressions, no longer necessarily having anything to do with baseball. SigPig 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Terence Ong 05:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As a non-fan of baseball and looking at the two articles, could baseball jargon and baseball slang not be combined? There seems to be little to differentiate the two at the moment. I think that this article discusses the effects of baseball jargon on American English - and through the mass media on other forms of English too - so perhaps if they can't be combined this could be cleaned up to make clear that is isn't discussing baseball as such.  (aeropagitica)  07:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or alternatively merge to List_of_baseball_jargon. -- Arnzy | Talk 08:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of baseball jargon. It shows an alternate usage for some baseball jargon outside the sport. Else, move Transwiki it to Wiktionary; I think the info is worth keeping, even if not here. SigPig 13:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Transwiki to wikisource and link to baseball if anyone is interested in keeping this content (and I think it is useful content; just not encyclopedic article material). If the keepers insist on retaining this as a list, merge it with List of baseball jargon jargon or vice versa; no reason to have two lists that could be combined into one.--Isotope23 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC
• Merge to List of baseball jargon OsFan 20:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and this may be WP:IAR more than anything, but I find the content useful, informative, and distinct from baseball jargon. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• At minimum, merge to list of basebal jargon. Preferably, transwiki both to the wiktionary. --Karnesky 06:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and what's with the flow of jargon-related AfD's lately? — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of these were all nominated by the same self-confressed sockpuppet. Possibly for a WP:POINT. These lists are useful (though possibly would be better on Wiktionary & I wish that the nom used Template:Move to Wiktionary or similar instead of the AfD-fest. There's no way these will all be deleted. --Karnesky 07:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We could have an interwiki link to the wiktionary article, so you WOULD know it was there. --Karnesky 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tony the Marine 06:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge To the list of baseball jargon
• Transwiki to Wiktionary (specifically, to a Wiktionary Appendix) and delete from Wikipedia. Replace any links in Wikipedia with cross-wiki links. Rossami (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I reached this decision by noting that all of the KEEP votes, with the exception of the first, were made by users with accounts that were either less than 2 weeks old or appear to have only been used recently in edits related to this discussion. Anybody that's a member of a group would logically try to prevent this article from being deleted, but after looking through the article myself, while it's a VERY well-written article that you should all be proud of (it's better than 99% of the schlock that gets fed through AFD), it's unfortunately not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elite_Roleplaying

non-notable gaming community TheOneCalledA1

• Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Bobby1011 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd hate to delete a page that looks like it took such effort, but wikipedia is not a personal web space for individuals or groups. --Cymsdale 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstain I'm removing my delete recommendation; I'm on the fence on this one. --Cymsdale 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ick next we will get Star Trek clans..... Williamb 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but offer them a userfy. Someone spent alot of time on that.--Isotope23 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Understandable arguments, but being one of the main people who created this, I have to agree to keep it, no offense intended. Elite Roleplaying itself is a large RPG group with 3 divisions and a defined governmental system. It may seem minor, but it has been involved in the Star Trek Voyager Elite Force community (and the Star Wars Jedi Knight Jedi Academy community, but not for so long) and has gained quite a history with a great amount of members (probably around 200+). Now, look at an article like Bravo Fleet. Bravo Fleet is a Star Trek SIM group, just as ERP is except with the inclusion of in-game RPG and a Star Wars division. We have and have had a large member database just as Bravo Fleet, and there is even more valid information that can be included in the ERP article than the Bravo Fleet article. The Elite Roleplaying article isn't small but very detailed with some very interesting information on a group that has been active for about 5 years. While creating this article, I also avoided the use of personal POV, I respect neutrality in articles. I also greatly contemplated whether this article would be nominated for deletion, as it is being done right now. I made this in a way to avoid being an advertisement, but to be informative and interesting, I even had assistance by a great number of people in retrieving proper information to make sure all was complete. If Bravo Fleet can be kept, I think Elite Roleplaying should be kept. If this article is deleted, then the Bravo Fleet article should be discussed as well. Thank you for your time. - Enzo Aquarius 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, sounds like a good argument to start an AfD of Bravo Fleet...--Isotope23 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - A poll was already done for the deletion of the Bravo Fleet article, a non-consensus was declared. Many of the arguments that contributed to it are most likely what is involved in the decisions for the deletion of this article. As another note of 'interest' per se, this article was not meant for advertisement. We (the group) felt that we had an adequete amount of valid information that could be added to Wikipedia. Elite Roleplaying isn't just 'another Star Trek clan', we distinguished ourselves in our communitys (we aren't even a clan actually) and were able to grow due to a successful and dedicated memberbase. Even as we speak, further expansion plans are being created. Elite Roleplaying isn't just a 'Star Trek clan'. - Enzo Aquarius 13:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems fairly obvious that this organisation is large enough and with a rich history in the development of roleplaying (especially given links with Destiny's Wind "ERP's Sister Star Trek Project.")to dispute the initial reason given for deletion. A non-notable gaming community? The sister project of Destiny's Wind? I'm afraid that the initial reason given is in no way justified. There is nothing to support such an arguement. - Helios 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith (WP:FAITH) and refrain from making unsupported accusations about people's identity or intent.--Isotope23 20:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Apologies, no offense was intended. Just felt that the article had more dubious reasons behind it's call for deletion. Again, my aplogies..--Helios 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh god, dont get the entire wikipedia community on an problem that is nobodys buisness. I am TheOneCalledA1. I am not "Digi". Please dont bring this argument here too. On the next note, so, does this mean that an article on the longest lasting Star Trek Community/Clan deserve an article too? It would have just as much right to as Elite Roleplaying does.TheOneCalledA1 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why it should be deleted? The article refrains from PoV's, it adheres to a strict non-advertising and purely informative stance. It is in no way being used as a 'personal webspace'. Elite Roleplaying is an organisation that has been around a long time and has a large and rich history with regards to Elite Force Roleplaying and the sister project of Destiny's Wind. Why should it be deleted? All you have done is compared it to a fairly irrelevant example. Please can you give something more direct? Does it break any particular rule? Does it act in a manner that it deserved to be deleted? The non-notable tag really can't be justified in this particular situation. Elite Roleplaying is not a 'Star Trek clan'.-Helios 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- Can't justify reason for deletion The group has too much of a history in EF RPing, it's links with Destiny's Wind and that it's a well known group with a large member base in the EF RPing community. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Achives nothing through it's deletion.--Helios 12:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ERP Was the forerunner to a very popular trend of gaming within the Elite Force community, and many of its ideals and practices have spread to others, ERP Is not using wikipedia to advertise itself, The article is a very well drawn up and informative peice of information concerning a large part of the history within the elite force community. ERP is not a clan, it is a group of people who started out with one goal, and acheived it. The wiki article is not an advert, and is not harmful In any way that I can understand. What saddens me most is I beleive the issue was drawn to your attention by someone who is not concerned for the integrity of wikipedia, but by someone who outlawed themself from the ERP community by causing major disruptions, and I personally beleive that this is more of an act of revenge than concern for the misuse of wikipedia webspace. The article is Completely factual, and very well constructed, There are many outside of the ERP community who could speak for its integrity, and recognise what it has acheived over the years. --Merrick

Comment - We strive to have an enjoyable experience with our peers and colleagues in a roleplaying environment, it's not about greatness but about working with great people. We work together well in our community, and this article also reflects that, we got together to make an article on a topic we felt was valid for Wikipedia, we did not use personal bias, we did not make an advertisement article and we made it very informative. There are also a number of edits by those that aren't even Elite Roleplaying with no complaints from them. Thank you for your time. - Enzo Aquarius 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep-I withdraw my last comment. The ERP people have put a lot of time into this page, and it's a shame to squander that.

--Cronin

• Keep - Ok, I'll list and rebut the sections I believe it is felt that the article fails on. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." I don't believe this is breached, as the article maintains NPOV throughout. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. Again, as far as I can see, the article is indeed written in the aforementioned objective, unbiased style, and therefore does not breach this, either. ERP is also verifiable by most of the RPG community of Elite Force and Jedi Academy. As such, I believe it should be kept. -- Berle
• Keep This doesn't violate any rules, and was formatted neutrally... No need for deletion Legovan (Millen)
• Keep I agree, I haven't seen any rules that this article violates. -- GMoney 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Please take note, that several of the people who voted are actualy Elie Roleplaying members. TheOneCalledA1 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Further Comment - A good number of these people helped me make the article or contribute too, as I said, it was a community effort and is thus the works of many. - Enzo Aquarius 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Further Comment - I'm not a member. - Cronin
• Further Comment I didnt say that all are. I said several. Theres atleast two ERP members who voted to keep, who havent made any other edits except their userpages and this.

TheOneCalledA1 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuchullain (talk • contribs).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedy Deleted as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Bear (band)

I put a speedy delete tag on it but it was removed. Non-notable band. Blank page on allmusic.com. Ifnord 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Ifnord 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vanity. Bobby1011 03:32, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Dioquino

I placed this on Proposed Deletions on 20 Feb. An anon user removed the tag (twice-another user reverted the first time) without explanation or further changes to the article. As it stands this article does not meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO—delete. JeremyA 03:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable. --Hetar 03:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: doesn't claim notability. --Sneftel 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delte as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:43, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A quiet mind

Non-notable and likely vanity/spam - the article and the user who created it share the same name.

• Delete. Thenugga 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencylopedic, not noteworthy, vanity or advertizing. Whatever you want to call it, it doesn't deserve an article. Bobby1011 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, vanity, spam, etc. dbtfz^talk 05:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another podcast advert? No discussion of notability in article.  (aeropagitica)  07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doomsday argument says the podcast won't meet the 100 year test... among other reasons. --Cymsdale 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity per nom. --Lockley 18:14, 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 Keep. - Bobet 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Police Department

Wikipedia is not the Phone book. This Police Station is not notable. Bobby1011 03:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Article is primarily an organization chart and phone book. Oscar 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the police departments of major cities are usually politically controversial, and the histories of such departments often have value. Expansion is warranted. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
• Keep but expand The city of Gary/East Chicago is such a prominent one in regards to the high crime rate that this police department is one of the busiest in the nation. I'd say this article needs to be cleaned up and the focus taken off who commands which sector and put into more interesting encyclopedic information. Batman2005 06:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article is a stub at the moment. There is barely any discussion of the subject, the majority of the content being a list of senior officers. I would abstain from voting until the author or another editor has contributed some notable events in the history of the department.  (aeropagitica)  07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and I agree with Aeropagitica in terms of needs more content to ensure notability is refined. VirtualSteve 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless I'm gonna be allowed to get away with seperate articles on every Police Station in Britain! Jcuk 10:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This does not appear to be about a police station but a city-wide department in a fairly large city. Important public service, at least as notable as any school. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up removing all the lists of current position holders. Capitalistroadster 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Article cleaned up. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 17:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Until recently, Gary had the highest crime rate of any city in the US. It probably still does, as regards some specific types of crime. (Look it up in your World Almanac; I can't find mine right now.) The police department there would thus seem notable. ergot 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jcuk. Stifle 00:28, 28 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. Mo0[talk] 22:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Byrne

does not contribute to wikipedia

• Delete as nn. Bobby1011 04:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, their band is also fails WP:MUSIC. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Hbackman 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete band named "Instant Death," this article deserves "Instant Death" Batman2005 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Impressive argumentation. Clearly a band from a subculture which enjoys different moral standards than yours must be deleted. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

With resepct squell but how do you have any idea what my moral standards are? Stop with the pretentious attitude. I voted delete cause this person is no more notable than you are. Batman2005 05:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil, guys. Hbackman 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your explanation says you voted delete because the band is called Instant death, i.e., because it's some obscure rock band you don't care about. I'm not sure if there's enough info for a seperate article, but this guy was definately more notable than I am. squell 16:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's called a play on words, let me know when you have a few minutes and i'll try to explain it to you. Batman2005 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete also seems to contain impossible to verify details. TheRingess 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[17]? Apparently they toured with Urchin (band) too. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable drummer, WP:Music refers. WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Instant Death toured with Ween. If Ween are notable doesnt that mean Instant Death are by virtue of touring with them? And if Instant Death ARE notable, can we say individual members of the group are not? No vote, dont know enough about the subject. Jcuk 10:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not enouggh notability rubbedoff from Dave Dreiwitz 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Srasku 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with Instant Death. Wikipedia is not paper, and the general argument for deleting this seems to be "never heard of the guy", which is rather weak. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per squell. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:45, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music Talk

Originally placed on Proposed Deletions but detagged by an anon, this article is about a non-notable podcast that has been going for less than 2 months and can only claim 500 subscribers--delete JeremyA 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Bobby1011 04:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• be kind, rewind and add the unsourced tag... in one week. Source it or kill it! --CyclePat 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per non. VirtualSteve 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Notjarvis 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all podcasts. Stifle 00:28, 28 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 SEMISPEEDY DELETE - if the author is blanking it and this debate is going the way it is, we might as well call it a day. -Splash^talk 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Age Total War

Delete. The advertisement tag had been added to this article, and since then edits have done nothing to change that. On the contrary, the article now sounds more like a sales pitch. The page includes biographies of everyone who worked on the project as well as a giant FAQ section, and looks like a vanity article in general. Isopropyl 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advert. Bobby1011 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable mod and advertising. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "And behold! ... it stank." - J.R.R. Tolkien. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me reiterate that: delete, really. Unreleased mods aren't notable enough for their own articles, by the way, unless they got really brutally cancelled or something. Took me a while to realize they hadn't really made a release, when the article managed to bury that in marketory talk and the links were malformatted too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam, and delete all the images. Notable, existing, commercially released games don't get this many images; compare GoldenEye 007. ergot 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The author (User:Fatsheep) blanked the article. Though he's not the sole author if we're nitpicky (User:88.153.105.61 also touched this article, mostly to remove stuff though). And I don't think it satisfies speedy G7 criteria because this article was certainly not created accidentally. (Oh, accidentally created the article, then edited it 27 times just adding more advertising stuff? =) Though I'm sure this action counts as a strong argument that the article should nevertheless be deleted ASAP! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:42, 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. -Splash^talk 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ComoAnda

• View more discussion on proposed deletion here: User_talk:Cymsdale#AfD_on_ComoAnda
• Note: Please do not base the site's notability on Alexa Traffic Ranking. ComoAnda has a largely Spanish speaking audience which most likely does not utilize the Alexa toolbar which is in English.--Oceanrythm 15:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep I am the author for this page and also developer of ComoAnda. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for deleteing this tag earlier. It was simply an misunderstanding of protocol. This site has been sited as not compliant with WP:WEB. ComoAnda meets requirements for Criterion 3 of WP:WEB - content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. A9.com, a well know opensearch aggregator, utilizes and distributes ComoAnda search content. A9. Article was edited, explaining ComoAnda's involvement in opensearch(A9), after the proposed deletion comments were made. --Oceanrythm 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for proposed deletion but detagged by the author, this article is about a website that does not appear to meet and of the criteria suggested at WP:WEB—delete. JeremyA 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 880,420. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, advert. --Cymsdale 10:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• First, I'm on board with not using Alexa rank of 880K as evidence of anything other than how worthless Alexa can be as a sole judgement criteria at times. That said.... Being aggregated by A9 doesn't in itself confer notability I don't think, under a reasonable interpretation of WP:WEB. (Do all 299 other sites have articles here? Do they defend notability using that criterion alone?) I agree that a wikilawyering interpretation might, by some major stretching, confer it, but we should do what is reasonable. I'd like to see some other evidence of notability such as citations by other clearly notable sites, writeups in published material, researchers citing it, or at least something more than 4 pages of hits in Google (I may not have searched effectively, it is true) before I'd change my comment from delete, but for now, that's what it is. ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Referencing WP:WEB:

Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation
3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. [7]

When asking if ComoAnda meets criterion 3, you'd need to ask: Is A9.com well known and independent of the creators of ComoAnda? I believe - yes. And if 'yes' to the first question... Is ComoAnda's content distributed via A9? Fact - yes.

I am not clear on how this would be some 'major stretching' or wikilawyering of the interpretation of WP:WEB

Should criterion 3 be removed from the site notability guidelines? Or should web sites be required to meet 2 of 3 criterion to qualify? Or can web sites meet any three of criterias, and still not be considered notable? --Oceanrythm 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the current guidelines say, but thanks for repeating them for the benefit of others. There are two counters to them in this case, in my view.

• First: These are guidelines, not rules. A site that does not meet any of them can nevertheless be found notable, and a site that some claim meets all of them can nevertheless be found not notable. That is, meeting them is not a free pass, it's a guide to how to proceed in deciding what to do.
• Second: In my view the problem is with what "distributed" means in this context. I think most people would agree that, for example, Google does not "distribute" the sites you can look up there... it merely lets you find them. Yet, it fits the above definition with some stretching. Even the Google news pages aren't making the sites they find stories from notable merely by making the stories findable. We have debated other aggregators before, such as Keenspot's keenspace, and the conclusion has been in the past that merely being syndicated or distributed by keenspace is not sufficient to make a site (webcomic in that case) notable. With 300 sites aggregated by A9, it will take some convincing to show that is not the case here. Yes, A9 is well known and independent of the site (and notable!), but that's not relevant to whether its notability is transitive to this site.

Finally, if this site truly is notable, it will be easy to find other evidence of it, evidence such as I and others outlined, citations by others, influences, references, writeups, articles, and so forth. The fact that you repeatedly cite the WEB guidelines (here and on talk pages elsewhere), instead of doing that, is why I feel it gives the appearance of wikilawyering, which will tend to leave a bad impression with others popping in here to express their opinions. You'd much rather they came in here, got interested in whether the article is or isn't notable, found some other reason to dig around, and enhanced the article or this debate with additional information and notability instead of concluding that your apparent wikilawyering is proof of non notability (by someone looking for adverts or to increase notability by USING wikipedia to enhance inward links... not saying that's you but we see that a lot), and moved on. IMHO anyway. So, consider finding those other evidences and I will be falling all over myself to change my current feeling, as I am inclusionist!!! I hope that helps. I am guessing you may not be very experienced here since you haven't set up your user page and haven't been using formatting much in your replies so I took the liberty of formatting your words above.++Lar: t/c 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

really good feedback. and yes, i do have much to learn about wikipedia. --Oceanrythm 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, it's trivial distribution per footnote 7. Steve block talk 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca H. Davis

Biography of person with no noteworthy achievements. Delete —Brim 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A good biography, but no assertion of notability. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She sounds she was a like a very nice person and the biography is well written but the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Also violates NPOV...what if somebody thought she was a real jerk and not a "remarkable person." Batman2005 07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  07:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio. MCB 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• NOT Delete. This article is undergoing continual updates by the author as research continues. The author has responded to one of the commentators because of the availability of a talkpage. Some others have no means of a direct response by the author. The author is NOT memorializing this person, but is attempting to write a credible contribution of one person's high imprint for change on society around her at a time when a single woman in that location was considered a "spinster" and did not value herself beyond her front door. Also, "noteworthiness" can lie outside the average, limited public view and current judgments -- which is actually possible, given none of the commentators have any way of knowing her personally, nor have the understanding behind the choices she made. Also, if a commentor happens to be an atheist, their also lies the possibility of an underlying bias in their comments on this particular article. And the commentary of "remarkableness" vs. thinking "jerk" was actually the use of another person's opinion. I should have kept the article as a "Draft" if that was possible. I am still fairly new to writing for Wiki. mshafbMshafb 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that "none of the commentators have any way of knowing her personally, nor have the understanding behind the choices she made." proves each persons point on here, that while she sounds like a great person, she is not of encyclopedic value and thus doesn't warrant inclusion here. Additionally, your assertion that someones religous views might determine their thoughts on this article are both offensive and unwarranted, you have no idea as to the religious beliefs of the users here. I notice how you claim that the "remarkable person" content was someone elses opinion, yet you make no effort to properly cite this information, or remove it as biased and POV. The article is riddled with POV, contains original and non-verifiable research and is written of a subject who does not meet the criteria for biographical inclusion here. This is not a statement to your ability to write a memorial, nor one against the character of the subject. There are many non-encyclopedic sites on which you may write a tribute/memorial article. I would suggest looking there as the consensus here is delete. Batman2005 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - bio with no assertion of notability. I'm not sure that being a good and kind person counts as an assertion of notability. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Regrettable. Well written bio. But we can't have an article on WP for every good person on earth. Agree with comments of all "delete" voters above. I suggest the author set up a webpage or blog if they want to memorialize this person (or else find a verifiable "notable" accomplishment which would qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedia). Slowmover 17:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:BIO, WP:NPOV and Notability. Looking at the other articles this user has created it appears that BIO and especially NPOV seems to be a recurring problem. I would suggest in reply to User:Mshafb's protestations of the article being unfinished, that you copy it into one of your user pages until completion and then whilst ensuring it complies to WP:Manual of Style, WP:BIO and WP:NPOV then it may be considered a legitamate article for inclusion in the wiki project (however notability may still be a problem). Comment - my atheism or the fact I did not know the person does not have any bearing what so ever in this AfD process and should not have been brought to discussion. Death Eater Dan 17:58, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington's Hard Winter

For reasons that are completely unexplained, Washington's Hard Winter refers to the winter of 1779-1780. There is no info in this stub, and Google has just 9 hits for this title, 8 of which appear to be Wikipedia mirror sites, and another that refers to Valley Forge (which was 2 years earlier). In other words, I nominate this for deletion (a first for me) because this is completely ahistorical and lacking in every way. Oscar 05:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Though that winter was certaintly hard, the term "Washington's Hard Winter" seems like a neologism or original research. A Google search for this term only comes up with Wikipedia mirrors. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This doesn't appear to require merging with George Washington, as there is no information in the article itself. Poor title choice, too.  (aeropagitica)  07:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly A1 speedy. Marskell 12:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like original research to me. --Terence Ong 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. ergot 05:43, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trisha Hart

Delete - non-notable rydia 05:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per "i'm sick of melissa joan-hart's non-notable family member articles that are poorly written." Somebody must really like Melissa Joan-Hart's family. Batman2005 07:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. Why is the Hart family so prominently featured on AfD all of a sudden? Can they not be mentioned on MJH's own article if they need to be mentioned at all?  (aeropagitica)  07:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Violent, drawn-and-quartering death (by which I mean delete). Wikipedia is not a Melissa Joan Hart fan club. --Aaron 16:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Melissa Joan Hart per WP:BIO. Non-notable relatives of notable people get mentioned in the notable person's article. Stifle 00:28, 28 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 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Ignacio

Prodded, tag removed, tag restored in violation of prod guidelines. Moving to AfD. It's an Argentine web-series. NickelShoe 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable web show. Proto||type 11:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn web material. No Alexa ranking, fewer than 20 Google hits. MCB 02:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MCB. Stifle 00:27, 28 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 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superhero manual

Delete vanity posting about a nonnotable "ongoing project" engaged in by a nonnotable club on a do-it-yourself website. Postdlf 05:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pointless. Travislangley 06:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's still "under construction" and Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. If it gets finished and becomes notable with some third-party references, then Wikipedia might be an appropriate place for this information. NickelShoe 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• The deletion tag has been removed twice, btw, so please help me keep an eye on it. Postdlf 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Agree with initial prod tag. Fails WP:WEB and is a vanity page. Will keep an eye on the page, per Postdlf. Kareeser|^Talk! 17:47, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ajaz Ahmed

Non-notable bio. Likely vanity. Delete —Brim 05:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Apparent self-bio. Kukini 06:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity per nom. --Lockley 18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle 00:27, 28 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 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roybacer

Delete. Vanity page, appears to have been created by the site's webmaster Graham 05:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity page. Travislangley 06:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page for website with No Alexa rank at all! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, and dump the image too. Stifle 00:27, 28 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. I'm not of the opinion that this thin debate needs relisting since the nomination is entirely compelling and we don't have an in-place procedure that advocates locked forks of articles. -Splash^talk 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr./Stable

Rationale for this page is as an experiment under the proposal for Wikipedia:Stable versions, but no timescale for same has been outlined (much less an experimental hypothesis) and there's been no activity on the "reviewing" for a week. Indeed, said discussion would more usefully have been conducted on the talk page of the "main" article, which is by no means "unstable", so could have been done in place. There seems to be the secondary goal here of greating a "parallel non-wiki wiki" in the existing namespace, which seems to be highly problematic without explicit consensus. So in essence this leaves us with an unnecessary fork, that's needlessly protected, and doesn't comply with the naming conventions, and is cluttering up live category space with the ill-named duplicate. Alai 06:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per excellent nomination. Stifle 00:19, 28 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 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PHP Enterprise

Vanity page. Nowhere is this software publicly available, Google search turns up absolutely nothing. The author has already been deleted (archived debate).

• Delete - Crenner 06:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Non-notable product, WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:52, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Michael Kintzle

Fledgling actor, most edits are by a couple of newer users who may be inserting publicity (Celeb Bios (talk • contribs), User:Morgancc (talk • contribs)) whose main contributions are interlocking support for this actor in various articles. I copyedited it and prodded it originally, but then Morgancc came in and removed that without comment, so I'm bringing it here. IMDB lists one movie so far, and may have bio information that was also submitted by the actor or his agent. -- nae'blis _(talk) 06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. -- nae'blis _(talk) 06:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm thinking "Ian Michael Kintzle" is one of the posters supplying information. God knows he's not busy making movies or doing other acting gigs which would warrant inclusion here. Batman2005 07:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IMDB shows just one role in a not-very-successful film, and he's almost at the very bottom of the credits (after such characters as "Nurse", "Hairstylist" and "Rider Girlfriend"), so his role must have been very tiny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable actor. Needs to appear in more successful films and television series in order to make a name for himself.  (aeropagitica)  16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable per nom. --Lockley 18:17, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh LaBove

personal bio Kukini 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Could be speedied, but I see why it is on AfD, as there are links to notable TV shows... however, if this child actor did play a role in "ER", "The Magic School Bus", etc, as more than just an "extra", then perhaps Keep & Expand. Kareeser|^Talk! 06:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - He was an actor on All That, a very popular TV show on Nickelodeon, and has guest apperances on several TV shows like E, and has an IMDB entry, he's notable enough for me. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and cleanup. A personal bio in no reason for deletion unless it is of a non-notable person, seems notable.--Blue520 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep child actor with some fairly major roles. Needs a bit of cleanup, but overall notable and not a terrible start for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, regular, credited roles on three US tv series. Monicasdude 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. Violating WP:AUTO is just bad form.--Isotope23 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I've cleaned up the page, wikified where possible, added a link to IMDb.com and categorised.  (aeropagitica)  16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep There are plenty of not very notable actors on Wikipedia; another one can do no harm. - Runcorn 17:08, 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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pennington Grimes

NN elementary school. Assertion of nobility present (best academic performance}, but anybody can say that. No external links, statistics. Kareeser|^Talk! 06:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Agreed that the "renouned" statement needs verification if it is to be a valid (and NPOV) claim to notability (and hopefully the school's educational norms include how to spell the word renowned). –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep as per wiki/schools Jcuk 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per vague consensus achieved months ago at Wikipedia:Schools. Proto||type 11:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wiki/schools is not policy. School is not notable with being granted inherent notability. Bobby1011 14:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are more notable than subway stations, and subway stations are per se notable. Monicasdude 14:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Elementary school with no claim to notability.--Isotope23 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia:Notability (music) is not "Policy", however you try telling that to anyone voting delete on a musical article. Schools guideline states the only criterion for notability of schools is verifiability. Jcuk 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does nothing to provide readers with any pertinent information. A waste of bandwidth. Denni ☯ 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, verifiable schools are perfectly notable. Silensor 23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, this particular school isn't particularly notable. It claims (rather, claimed) to have an excellent academic record, but that hasn't been verified, nor will it, if the article stays. Kareeser|^Talk! 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep schools. Stifle 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — An editor has rewritten the article. It now contains a listing of the ethnic makeup of the school, broken down into percentages. I find that a little segregatory (if that is a word), and besides that, it also contains no notable information either. Kareeser|^Talk! 01:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep  ALKIVAR™ 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. KWH 04:15, 28 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 02:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toonophobia

• keep The article is sourced and is a real phenomena. It may seem ridiculous because it is , but is is nevertheless a very real phenomeneon.--CltFn 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically a hoax. Original author has even stuck the humor tag on it. At best is a non notable nelogism. I originally stuck a speedy on it as nonsense, yet original author decided to remove it instead of sticking a hangon. Even though they stuck the humor template on it, it is not even that funny.Delete TheRingess 06:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Made up word, Toonophobia is not a real Phobia --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Chris 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does a separate AfD need to be done for the humor tag? Schizombie 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as made up word. --Terence Ong 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This needs a flashing red Satire sign, a la Monty Python's Architect sketch. Attempt at humour that misses the mark by a mile.  (aeropagitica)  16:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - possbly speedy, given that it says it's non-factual. Maybe recreate as a redirect to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, since ISTR Bob Hoskins' character in that suffered from toonophobia. Grutness...wha? 23:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not funny. Pavel Vozenilek 23:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yes not funny and per nom. --James 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 19:01, 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. Mo0[talk] 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pixel Porn

Non-notable concept that appears to be Webspam for one specific Web site. Only 737 Googles. Prodded but contested. FCYTravis 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & I don't see how the definition given separates this type of porn from any other on the internet... it's all pixels. Chris 07:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 07:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and User:Seqsea. JIP | Talk 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Retain Article details subgenre of pornography and special use of term pixel porn as substantiated by public use online, in advertising, and print media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.73.159.139 (talk • contribs).
• Delete "prodded but contested"? Didn't see that coming, no sir! Anyway, we don't have an article for calculator porn either (549 googles, but you bet people won't *ahem* talk about this!) and it's just as viable. Why this, then? No reason at all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Retain If Wiki becomes but a mirror of a google determination then what's the point? Content is unique, may need work but should persist. Bigpeter 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Google test is just one of the tools to measure the notability of subject, in this case, "do people actually use this term?" Wikipedia has articles on notable subjects, not words that next to no one uses! Wikipedia is not a dictionary either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Google cannot accurately predict or report the frequency of use for new terms or uprising notable events. Words that 'next to no one uses' is subjective and personally opinionated and irrelevant. I'm not a member, but I am a wiki-community user and Big-brother Wikians should GUIDE and Instruct not censor or abuse rules. Especially rules that are themselves, guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.73.159.139 (talk • contribs).
• Delete, nn spam. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, consider merge with pornography. WikiPatriot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.65.66.208 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment. Are anons allowed to participate in these discussions? No offense meant; I just thought I'd read somewhere that anons have no say in deletion discussions. Hbackman 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Anons are allowed to participate in the discussion (if they can provide good arguments for or against), just that their votes aren't usually counted. This is more of a discussion than a vote - supposed to be a method of charting the user community consensus. This is especially seen if the established users are all voting "delete" and anons "keep". =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay. Thanks for the clarification. :) Hbackman 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an interesting and unoffensive article. If the article itself is not kept, it should be merged with another artcile. I would not want to lose the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.217.10 (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 NO CONSENSUS. This debate isn't conclusive enough in the delete direction for me; the final comment is correct since Alexa headlines 3month moving averages, whilst this site's daily/weekly rank is better 1,000th. Since the debate rests mainly on unexplicated "nn" or "low alexa" I don't think the deletion case is made at present. -Splash^talk 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexadex.com

Not notable website abakharev 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Currently features on the front page of www.alexa.com zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete This site is certainly gaining in popularity, and what's the harm of having it in Wikipedia, anyway? Thekohser 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. I'm always suspicious of "don't delete" votes. Stifle 00:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Even if Merge is not a category, I feel that is should be merged or redirected to Alexadex or just deleted. TheTallOne 17:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not enough votes to interpret; relisting. Chick Bowen 05:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Royboycrashfan 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting concept, but no evidence of satisfying WP:WEB, low Alexa rankings. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thekohser. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Daily reach of almost 600 per million and 844 rank at Alexa.com. Gaining popularity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AAAAA (talk • contribs) .
• Weak Delete or Merge - Simply merge this site with Alexadex or delete it, in which case Alexadex should also be deleted.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The most clearly supported position here is to delete and it also makes it easily above the two-thirds level, probably even before the usual discounting of anonymous, very new and mission-driven editors. The fact is that this is an 'internet thing' that is new and not widely spread on the internet: the arguments to the contrary clearly haven't persuaded anyone who was not already persuaded. -Splash^talk 22:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Futuristic Sex Robotz

Band with no actual releases, a link to their Encyclopaedia Dramatica entry and such beautiful lines as "Popular references include... killing your mom and putting her in a van and burning her, and then writing about that shit in their livejournals."FCYTravis 07:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A full-length album has been released in mp3 format. The band passes WP:MUSIC as a prominent representative of the Nerdcore genre. Incidentally, the quoted text is a reference to Rachelle Waterman, who is the subject of one of their songs. Thatdog 07:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If a "prominent representative of the Nerdcore genre" gets 344 total Google hits, I would posit that Nerdcore fails WP:MUSIC. I certainly expect a band that bases its entire music/notability/whatever on the Internet to have more than that. Anyone can release full-length albums on mp3. Shit, I could do a "full-length mp3 album" with GarageBand. That doesn't mean I'd pass WP:MUSIC. FCYTravis 07:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Futuristic Sex Robotz passes all conditions for performers outside of mass media tradition. (Note the Daily Tar Heel article.) Your reasoning against the validity of a self released album in MP3 format is lacking; I'm sure you could release a full-length MP3 album using GarageBand, but the fact remains that it's entirely irrelevent. FSR has a large fan base that is primarily propagating the band via word of mouth and on web forums that are *not* being spidered by Google. The music video on FSR's web site has been downloaded 500,000+ times that can be verified (not counting an unknown number of mirrors) and the band has been in the Nerdcore_hip_hop article for months without question. The authors of this article have verified references to establish significant notoriety. Additionally, your original complaint is heavily biased. "Um... yeah, great." While we're at it, let's delete everything else you find personally offensive, shall we? Cellophane 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Biased? Well, gee, why would I be biased against something I'd never heard of until I stumbled across it on the WP:PROD listing? FCYTravis 08:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • KeepI think the fact that you've never heard of it is completely irrelevant. Clearly this page meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC under "performers outside of mass media tradition", so why don't we settle this one out? Penmoid 08:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This is not a user(penmoid, as they claim), its 209.221.140.121. As you can see by their contributions, they have made 4 edits; 3 of them to this vfd. Their first contribution was today. They are almost surely a sockpuppet.--Urthogie 12:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It may surprise you, but you don't have to have extensively edit an online encyclopedia to be a real, independent person. At one point, you made your first edit. 209.221.140.136 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My first edit wasn't a vote to keep a non-notable article, because like most people at that point i didn't know what a vfd is.--Urthogie 13:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I am now taking responsibility for that IP address. Penmoid 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE:Username was created today and this is his first entry

NOTE: Check the IPs, Sir. The username was registered yesterday, everything I have posted matches the IP that I posted under prior to creating the username, which I did for no other reason that anyone without a username is considered a sockpuppet. So while my username may only have one (now 2) edits, you yourself were only recently speaking of 5 edits from my IP address, which, using basic math, equals 7 posts. You talk a lot about NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, and yet you constantly attack anyone who speaks out in support of this entry, which shows extreme bias on your part. How many posts do those people who voted to delete have? I doubt you have even checked. And I also find it funny that you chose to bold your entire comment so that people would ignore every other comment you made to me, posting as the IP address that I claimed for my username. But I guess if all bold is en vogue now... Penmoid 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't check their usernames because a)theyre in blue, which means theyve made a userpage and b)their vote shows they have a basic understanding of policy concerning notability.--Urthogie 19:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Excuse my inexperience with Wiki editing. How do you get a list to nest properly? Yes, Biased:

1. "Band with no actual releases" Define "actual release." Not a valid argument against notoriety. The band still qualifies for other requirements in WP:MUSIC without being represented by a major label.
2. "a link to their Encyclopaedia Dramatica entry" Completely irrelevant. Are you saying that the article is vandalism? Was it written by documented vandals? No.
3. "and such beautiful lines as..." etc. Biased argument that the article isn't appropriate simply because it documents something you find personally offensive.

Perhaps the quality of the article could improve (I didn't write it), but certainly belongs here. Cellophane 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Dramatica entries are, well, generally not encyclopedic or useful external links. I trust it's obvious why someone would mistrust an article with external links to ED. Funny, generally. A reliable source? Not so much. Anyway, we'll let the community decide. FCYTravis 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable group in the "internet" scene. Has some quite humours releases too. They even have music videos for at least one of their tracks, and they pass WP:MUSIC as per above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nerds who rap on the internet aren't encyclopedic until they sell millions, collaborate with big artists, or are on mass media. A search for "Urthogie" gets more hits on google than these guys. Also, please note that they aren't representative of the style, if they were, they'd get more google hits than urthogie.--Urthogie 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A google search for Futuristic sex robots outside of wikipedia gives 297 hits, actually-- less than urthogie. Nice try biasing the search for one side and not the other, though :) --Urthogie 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

^[18]

And a search for "futuristicsexrobotz" (no spaces) yeilds 878 results. A search for song lyric "Yo Coaxke, what's killtacular mean?" -Robotz yields 114, meaning that there are that many people citing lyrics as a pop culture reference who aren't bothering to name the band directly. -Schrodinger82

Comment Umm...Google compresses most of those results, as many of them are from quoted forum posts. So it looks like eight different forums have lyrics posted to them. 878 results are unimpressive; that clearly is not all nerdcore has to offer, viz. MC Hawking. So FSR is simply not notable. --Mgreenbe 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Google also compresses results for "Urthogie." Which was pretty much the point. -Schrodinger82

Well you've managed to prove that they might deserve an article slightly more than a 16 year old wikipedian; congrats!--Urthogie 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Google counts the number of times a phrase or word has been mentioned on the internet, but can't count the number of fans someone has. Cellophane 10:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Cellephane's first edits were today; likely a sockpuppet.--Urthogie 11:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is not a sockpuppet account. I registered an account so I could be taken more seriously than an IP address. So far, that isn't happening. 13:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to Urthogie, please assume good faith. I don't think Cellophane is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. FCYTravis 19:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It has now been discovered that Cellophane is one of the members of the group, despite the fact that they have edited their own article.^[19]--Urthogie 11:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. If we can't prove the 'number of fans someone has', and this is the only justification that can be made for retaining the article, then the article fails WP:V. This is absolutely essential (note the link to Wikipedia:verifiability right there underneath the editing box and above the edit summary), and so unless relevant proof can be supplied, the article should be deleted. Proto||type 11:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that specific people in this discussion are specifically out to prove how many fans FSR *doesn't* have, simply because they don't like it. Cellophane 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Note to Cellophane, please assume good faith. Nobody's said anything about not liking it - only that it's not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 19:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete bandity. Having MP3s does't count as a released album for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known enough to be wiki'd. Girlmecha 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This user has made 8 edits(4 on their user page), and this is their first edit in the wikipedia namespace.--Urthogie 12:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I generally edit wiki without logging in first. Girlmecha 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I just don't know whats going on in the world anymore. Convinced by Urthogie that this article should not be. Smitz 12:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't fit the criteria for notability.--Urthogie 12:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Urthogie You really have a problem with this entry don't you - did you fail an audition? And a user who has been here for all of 21 hours really doesn't have the right to cast doubt on other users such as Girlmecha. The fact is this is a known band, I have heard of them, others on this page have heard of them, and no one has heard of you. Now relax sunshine :) Smitz 13:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't want fancruft to stay. You hearing about it is not a wikipedia guideline last time i checked. Perhaps you should try out wikicities? And what do you mean, been here for 21 hours? I've been editing for several months.--Urthogie 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• No entry at allmusic.com All music has nerdcore artists MC Hawking, but not these guys-- why? Because theyre not notable.--Urthogie 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• MC Hawking has been around for upwards of 9 years. Futuristic Sex Robotz's debut album has been out for two days. Consider the possibility that Google hasn't spidered a significant amount of coverage as of yet. Also, FSR's views about intellectual property combined with the fact that the album is free and not printed on a physical medium make it incredibly unlikely that the band will be recognized by the music industry at large, especially on sites such as allmusic.com. The idea that Wikipedia relies on industry controlled recognition to gauge notoriety is disappointing. Cellophane 13:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm going to sleep now. Do whatever the hell you want, this has all been your time to waste. Sooner than later, there will be far more than enough verifiable proof of the notoriety of FSR, which has primarily been an underground phenomenon spread through communities and mediums that are not being tracked by the criteria you're using as an excuse to debunk this article. I'll still be using this account; Cellophane has consistently been my online identity for years. I registered it to be treated with respect, not some kind of troll, and especially not to be shit on by association with people who you happen to dislike/distrust. Cellophane 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE this is Cellophane's second "Keep"↑  Percy Snoodle 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Band has gone beyond simply "making a few MP3s in GarageBand" by creating a music video that has gone on earn fame and even an award for best music video within the Halo community -- a gamne that grossed $125 million US in its first 24 hours. The game itself has several articles written on Wikipedia specifically on fan videos (e.g., red vs blue, the codex series), making it a valid genre to achieve notability in. The video went on to become so popular that it even inspired a group of impersonators who tried to capitalize on their name by calling themselves "Clan FSR," starting their own website, recruiting members, and even creating crossover videos of their own with other groups under false pretenses. (The impersonators were since revealed and most references were removed in embarassment, although you can still find hints of some -- though not all -- of this in google caching.). Google searches are unreliable, for a number of reasons. First, because the name is long, and people may "mispell" the word "Robotz," abbreviate the group, or most likely, simply link to the files directly. Aside from Halo blogs (which are low in number but feature high readership), the main means of promotion for this genre has been livejournal and instant message, which google either doesn't store, or doesn't store longterm. Unfortunately, there's no way to measure that. However, download counts should speak for themselves. Yes, the band has not sold millions of copies, nor has it signed on with a major label. However, the band has managed a strong following for itself within its own (admittingly niche) genre. -Schrodinger82

NOTE: User Schrodinger82 has made 4 edits[20], 3 of them today, and of those 3, 2 of them to this vfd. Their last edit before these 3 was on November 11th. Possibly a sockpuppet, but not necessarily. (I'm not targetting anyone with these notes, just trying to ensure that a fair vote occurs).--Urthogie 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if killing your mom and putting her in a van was a cirteion for dleteion that escaped me. We'd all like be in peril. Defunkier 13:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definately doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Karmafist 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Then smash the deleted article into one trillion pieces. Then burn the pieces. Marginal band in a marginal genre + no record deal = NOT NOTABLE. -- GWO
• Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Cellophane. Their debut album has been out for two days? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; let them be famous (e.g. notable and reputable reviews, etc.) and then they can go in. I fail to see them as prominent representatives of nerdcore with under a thousand Google hits and a two-day-old debut album. Cellophane, please discuss the article, not the contributors. It is difficult for new accounts to avoid suspicion on AfD; it was nothing personal. Feel free to sleep as much as you want, AfD discussion usually lasts a week. --Mgreenbe 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • With the clarification of the intentions of the objections in mind I don't have an objection to this article's deletion at this time. Cellophane 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GWO Fan1967 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable to a general audience. If they are as notable to Halo players as some claim then add the information to the Halo articles. Kcordina 14:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgreenbe Dsol 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being unnotable and failing WP:MUSIC -- they're certainly not the most prominent representative of nerdcore. Tuf-Kat 17:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Damn sockpuppeteers. — ciphergoth 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. With a self-released album a couple of days, these guys don't meet the bar for band articles at this stage. While they seem to have some following, they haven't done enough at this stage to meet our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They're becoming more and more popular and they make decent music. They are also relevant for their pretty small genre. --Eeo 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: User has 8 edits[21], and all of them except this one are from october of last year.--Urthogie 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 01:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. I watched their mechanime video, which is surprising catchy. -- Samir · ^T_C 07:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite diatribes suggesting the contrary, it doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We're talking about nerdcore here. A 14-year old beatboxing into a microphone would count as notable within the nerdcore circle. LupusCanis 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, he wouldn't. Tuf-Kat 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity, puppetfest. MCB 02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• I cleaned the article up significantly to meet Wikipedia's standards, or at least the standards by which other articles have remained consistently undisputed while documenting subjects of equal or lesser notoriety. Not to rationalize, but does seem to be a common theme. In regards to sock-puppetry, I honestly think this article has attracted an audience that is simply not generally active on Wikipedia as opposed to just throw-away accounts in order to troll/avoid accountability. I am still suspicious that there is a bias against the article based on the subject matter as opposed to whether it actually meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. I would even go so far as to recommend that WP:MUSIC should be improved in such a way that notable acts that are simply not "press friendly" can be gauged in terms of notoriety using a far more consistent and reliable means than the vague suggestion of Google hits. If Wikipedia is not documenting phenomenon, including something as simple as a DIY, underground musical act, that major media outlets *don't* necessarily want the public to know about or are not in a position to cover, that seems to be arguably contradictory to the goals of the project. In many cases, the requirements outlined in WP:MUSIC strike me as absurdly arbitrary. Cellophane 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It still doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC, because it doesn't fulfill any of the notability requirements. For example, it hasn't been around very long, so it's impossible to say its representantive of the Nerdcore hip hop genre, which has been around much longer than them.--Urthogie 15:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• • There are two major media references in the external links section to the contrary, one in one of the largest college newspapers in the United States and one in the blog of Game Developer Magazine's editorial department. In any case, whether it satisfies it or not, WP:MUSIC needs work. It doesn't specify how notability relates to the varying scope of a genre/style. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dawn_and_Drew_Show There's a precedent right there that if Futuristic Sex Robotz distributed all of its music via a Podcast, this article could in the Podcast category. This 66mb album has burned through 300gigs of bandwidth in 3 days via HTTP alone. That's very arguably no less than the output of a very popular Podcast, relatively speaking. Cellophane 15:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tourette's Guy[22] was downloaded way more, and still got deleted.--Urthogie 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're totally missing my point, though, and that isn't even close to being related to WP:MUSIC. Podcasts and music are essentially the same medium, not to mention that video is exponentially larger in data than audio. The point is, the album would be considered more than sufficiently notable for an article if it were a wrapped in a 5 line XML document first. Cellophane 15:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I missed your point-- you're arguing that its notable because so many people downloaded it. Hence, I replied with an example of why being downloaded a lot(millions of times in the case of tourette's guy...despite video format taking more time to download) doesn't matter as far as notability. If you have problems with WP:MUSIC, feel free to help make it better. But in the mean time, don't claim this article fits Music notability when it clearly doesnt. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making the point that an arbitrary number of x downloads automatically equals notability, I'm making the point that relatively speaking, the group is more notable than many other articles that remain undesputed, and Podcasts are the most similar example. Tourette's guy doesn't have an article because it's 1 out of a billion ridiculous videos on the internet. Futuristic Sex Robotz should have an article because it's 1 out of 8 or so notable acts in a notable genre. If you think this article "clearly" doesn't meet music notability, then you're one of the many others looking at this discussion and thinking "group releases album on own with no record deal, it can't possibly be notable," without giving any consideration to the fact that it's been recognized by verifiable sources as a significant member of a genre that is recognized by Wikipedia. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to how this group can be in the artist list of Nerdcore Hip Hop without any doubt whatsoever, but can't have an article of its own. Authorities on that specific genre as opposed to just hip-hop or music as a whole recognize it as meeting the requirements of WP:MUSIC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nerdcore_hip_hop Do you see any argument over whether or not Futuristic Sex Robotz belongs in that article? None. And there's nothing that distinguishes Futuristic Sex Robotz from the others that means that it has to be an external link while everything else has an article. --Cellophane 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

ARE YOU EVER GOING TO RESPOND TO THIS? --Cellophane 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Letting this stay lets anything in the genre stay.--Urthogie 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It lets anything with media attention stay. Besides, if a small genre is notable and it only has 10 artists, those artists should be considered notable based on different standards than yet another band of a heavily populated genre. --Cellophane 14:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From WP:MUSIC "Has been prominently featured in any major music media." A gaming website and a college paper are not The Source or Rolling Stone last time I checked. Not only are they not Major media, theyre not music media.--Urthogie 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Kuzaar 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 16:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." Note article's external links. --Cellophane 16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

External links such as Unencyclopedia, a joke wikipedia, and the fine journalism of game websites and something like tarheel.com?....--Urthogie

You are *seriously* dense. GameSetWatch is published by United_Business_Media and The Daily Tar Heel, University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill's newspaper has one of the largest circulations of a college newspaper in the country. --Cellophane 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your not knowing about Wikipedia:No personal attacks is part of your incomplete understanding of policies and guidelines here. And by the way, huge corporations own lots of tiny things-- being owned by one isn't a big deal-- actually being recognized as mainstream by the public is whats important(and gamesetwatch isn't that well known by the non-gaming public). Also, your unproven claim that its among the most distributed college newspapers is not backed up with a statistic.--Urthogie 17:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The gaming public is a notable subculture. "Futuristic Sex Robotz" returned the DTH article via Google News search during the month the it was published. Apologies for the insult, but I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing to you over and over. BTW, do you frequently vote articles for deletion if you suspect that the authors are Palestinian? That wasn't an insult, it was a question. --Cellophane 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but I don't even know who you are or where you're from. I'm just trying to get rid of an article thats not notable. And I think you'll find that most of the experienced wikipedia community would support its deletion. If it proves to be more than an internet fad that gets a lot of downloads and gets written up by college students occasionally, then good for it. Until then, its unencyclopedic.--Urthogie 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And, my god, you are trying very, very hard 209.221.140.136 04:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He really is, isn't he - I wonder what his problem is, do you have some kind of vendetta against thisarticle Urthogie? Because the amount of effort you are putting into having one article deleted is amazing. Seriously, why do you hate this article so much? There must be thousands of non-notable atricles in wiki, and your putting all your enrergy into an article that is being vigurously defended as notable by so many people? Go kill one of the other 999 articles that NO ONE will complain about. With the amount of support this article has, much from registered, experienced users (don't ask me to cite my references, but you know what I mean ;)) this article will not be deleted, and if it is, it will be restored at some point again. I suggest you just drop it and leave this article be :) Smitz 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I care about this because people are ignoring policy in keeping it. No vendetta involved, just came upon it while cateogrizing.--Urthogie 12:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're wrong, then we aren't ignoring policy. Unfortunately, you're so convinced that you're right, any attempts to reason with you are pointless. Maybe the majority of experienced Wikipedia editors would agree with you, but just because we *don't* agree with you, our opinion must just be a symptom of ineptitude? That's logically false. You need to consider that the standards upon which notoriety is established, however specific they are, are still a matter of personal interpretation. I agree with Smitz in that it's astonishing just how dedicated you are to having this article deleted. It's fine that you're standing up for yourself, but you're being unreasonable. --Cellophane 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm working so hard for its deletion is that it sets a precedent that makes it easier to delete cruft in the future.--Urthogie 13:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job having an agenda instead of just seeking consensus. Convince me that I'm wrong and I'll agree with you. You've just been spouting out the same position over and over again without addressing my criticisms of your argument, and stop referring to the precedents as if 1. they're set in stone, and 2. can't be interpreted however you want in order to get what you want instead of something everyone can agree with.--Cellophane 13:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll try and convince you. Their only claim to notability is that not many people make nerdcore hip hop. Where do we draw the line? Can anyone make a nerd-rap album and get an article? To this, you might answer that they've been mentioned in a college newspaper and a gaming website. In reply to that, I suggest you read WP:MUSIC which says "Has been prominently featured in any major music media." Neither a gaming website nor a college paper is a major medium or a music medium. Thus, the basis for keeping this is simply that its nerdcore hip hop alone-- a precedent its important we don't allow to be set.--Urthogie 16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The so-called non-notability is simply lack of exposure in heavily-indexed forms. The group is real and a few kilobytes on an online encyclopedia acknowledging this fact won't hurt anyone.--Mod 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This user has been registered for over a year and has made hundreds of edits. Penmoid 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Having reached cult status on several message board communities within a fortnight, it would seem like rather a waste of effort to delete the entry now, only to recreate it in a week when Google catches up with the excitement. If only perfect download stats were available from all mirrors and P2P applications: I'd be curious to see what the actual number of copies in the Ether is.

NOTE:Although they might not be a sockpuppet, this anonymous IP's last edit was a month ago.--Urthogie 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• ↑ Comment: according to the [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz Enyclopedia dramatica article], one of the members of the FSR edits with the name cellophane01. I posit that cellophane is the same person, in which case he's committing a serious faux pas by promoting his own band on wiki, and I would ask cellophane to remove himself from further discussion. - Crenner 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I can do that. --Cellophane 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It also shows that they have broken the policy of not editing articles autobiographicaly.--Urthogie 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is that policy written? I have enforced it several times, but always as a point of etiquette, not as an actual policy. I'd love to know where point people to the explanation. - Crenner 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography--Urthogie 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In his defense, from what I can tell: (a) he didn't start the article, and (b) the changes he made appear to be factual clarifications, some of which were more modest than the original wording (e.g., “The Futuristic Sex Robotz are the world’s first ‘Gangster Nerd Rap’ group” to “Futuristic Sex Robotz is a self-described ‘Gangster Nerd Rap’ group”). I do agree, though, that this probably still violates Wikipedia policy (I don‘t, however, agree that it‘s as cut-and-dry as a character judgement). (N.B.: I am a friend of Cellophane’s, though currently only online.) --Wevah 10:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I have no clue what he's like as a person, I'm just saying that the premise of AFD is that you follow the guidelines in making your decision.--Urthogie 11:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable even if it skirts the poor guidelines at WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNot notable. Nigelthefish 20:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I would say that they pass WP:MUSIC by "establishing a tradition or school in a particular genre," in this case, the tradition of "Gangster Nerd Rap" within the "Nerdcore" genre. They would also pass by being "frequently covered in publications dedicated to a particular subculture" with mentions on Slashdot, as well as entire threads on Something Awful. NOTE: This is CellBlock's first edit. It's probably my last, as I mainly just read the WP and don't worry too much about it, but FSR really shouldn't be deleted. - Whoops, thought the timestamp was automatic. --CellBlock 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE:This user's only edits are on this vfd, and this user was created today.--Urthogie 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. What exactly is the point of deleting this article? It's well-made, it describes a fairly well-known band with some unusual points and quite a strong following... just keep it, guys. Don't be pedantic. VJ Emsi 19:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep i discovered the page via the nerd core hip-hop wiki page. this page provides information on a music group which has music released, and as far as i can tell, reached a significant audience.--Wakingrufus 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's last edit was 3 months ago.--Urthogie 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How many of your countless edits every day are just pointing out other people's regdates and number of comments? My guess is a lot. Also, if you refer back to WP:MUSIC, you'll see that the criteria for inclusion and proof of notability has been changed, completely nullifying this entire argument. You yourself even quoted the line that was changed earlier in this AFD page, finishing off with something along the lines of "Not only are they not Major media, theyre not music media". Oh well, because major music media is no longer a requirement. So your BASE argument of notability is rendered moot by the changes to WP:MUSIC. But my guess is you're going to stick around until you see this article deleted. Penmoid 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article is now fairly well-written, band appears to be popular in their sub-sub-genre. I found these guys on [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ AD], and came to WP looking for real information about them. Glad this article was here. --Ultra Megatron 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: WP:MUSIC has been changed, and those of you who are participating should review the changes and make your votes accordingly. Penmoid 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Their debut album has been quite successful considering it came out less than two weeks ago. GoodSirJava 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Urthogie Note: Quote his RegDate, I DARE YA Smitz 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Has VFD reached such a low point where we need to point out whos not a sockpuppet? :) --Urthogie 16:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Alternative political spelling, although there are other suggestions. Since this is effectively an editorial decision, it can be pointed elsewhere if someone wants it to be. -Splash^talk 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micro$oft

"Micro$oft" deserves scarcely a own article on Wikipedia. Possibly can the article be merged with Criticisms of Microsoft, but articles about satirical names can never be entirely NPOV. Delete. --Off! 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• No vote, but two comments. (1) This is fairly well-documented Internet slang: see [23]. (2) Of course an article about satirical names can be entirely NPOV. It should be treated like any other article about someone's opinion or a controversy: describe it informatively, from a neutral point of view, without advancing one side or the other. It's all at WP:NPOV. If this article should be deleted, it should be for non-notability, not an unavoidable non-neutrality. –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for crusade, regardless if the concept is common or not. The article should be deleted (or merged). --Off! 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a merge would probably be best (or deletion for notability reasons), but I don't see how this page constitutes "crusade". The article is pretty much in line with the NPOV policy already: it looks like a good-faith neutral description of a point of view that doesn't try to advance it. –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Aprove - it may be common internet slang, but so are a lot of other stupid sayings. Do they all deserve entries in Wikipedia? Nope. I also agree with Off's comment that this will 'never' be NPOV Smitz 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• I now vote redirect to Alternative political spelling, where I just found that "Micro$oft" is already listed and described. –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't be. The spelling's not really political. Gazpacho 07:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitionary In fact... it's already there! --Cymsdale 10:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Wikitionary This makes more sense --Cymsdale 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: The term sees such common usage that I think it needs to stay. If we delete this, someone will come around and recreate it someday, almost assuredly with less NPOV. And if we delete this, should we also delete Microshaft, Internet Exploder, Internet Exploiter and other less common re-writings? Warrens 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, it's a term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think that some of those other articles should also be moved to wiktionary as well. --Cymsdale 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Yes, I see what you're getting at here. I've no involvement with Wiktionary so I'm not familiar with its focus. I'll change my vote though, this route sounds good. Warrens 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Move/Merge to Wiktionary; changing my vote per above comment. Warrens 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sommers Percy Snoodle 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect common misspelling of Microsoft. —Ruud 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Wikitionary This makes much more sense. --Hetar 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Wikitionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Srasku 23:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per Sommers. I think that makes more sense. -- Srasku 16:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge to Criticisms of Microsoft. There's already a merge proposal apparently; what do people expect when they look up this term in Wikipedia? Just adding Micro$oft to Wiktionary won't help those. squell 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, but not becuase of the reason cited - users would be told that Wiktionary would have an article for this and they would look there. However it is not a real english word, and has meaning beyond its misspelling. gatoatigrado 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that I changed my vote to Redirect per Sommers. squell 02:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Criticism, but redirect to Microsoft, extremely widespread. Gazpacho 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Microsoft (or an appropriate subpage). This is a pun on a proper name. It's not really Wiktionary material. Rossami (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Get rid of it all! ^KILO-_LIMA 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Health Information Organization

The article is a POV essay (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). It cites sources and has an impressive "References" section, but that by itself doesn't make the article NPOV; in this case, it merely makes it a well-supported POV. Unless this article can be substantially rewritten to neutrally describe the opinions advanced by the cited sources, rather than echoing them from a rhetorical/opinionated stance, there's no content in it that should be kept under Wikipedia's policies. –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but remove nearly all content. RHIOs are real so just cut down to a substub of verifiable NPOV information. — ciphergoth 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the subject is worth having an article on, but I nominated this for deletion because the article currently contains nothing (that I see) suitable for keeping, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to cut it down to a stub as you said. I was thinking it could be deleted as POV and then re-created as a viable stub when someone is able to do so (I understand this to be a valid procedure in these cases—please correct me if I'm wrong), but if you or someone else can change the article in this way now, please do so and I'll be happy to vote "keep". –Sommers ^(Talk) 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Quess I'll admit my ignorance on the Wikipedia way but by deleting nearly all the content the motivation for more than $200 million in expenditures in just the last year would be lost and RHIOs would appear to be an isolated concept. I'm unclear what fact or source cited in the article has raised an issue whether that fact/source has been modified to meet a desired POV and why reporting facts doesn't constitute a NPOV. While not everything is known about RHIOs it is a given that the US has a health information technology reform effort underway, it has the root causes in high cost and quaility, 150 or more RHIOs have been started, and they are state, local and rural. So, what is the issue that another POV might make?- futurekansas 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, valid subject and we seem to have a knowledgeable editor, I would rather have them read the NPOV policy and help edit the article than delete it. - cohesion★talk 08:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sommers and Cohesion. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:01, 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, already in BJAODN, replaced with a redirect to Beach cricket. - Bobet 12:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corridor cricket

I find it very well written and amusing, a high quality article, but either delete or userfy as an unverifiable personal essay containing original research about a non-notable subject. It was submitted to WP:PROP, but an anon contributor has removed its nomination there so I am submitting it here for consensus. The anon asked in an edit summary, "please keep this page alive!" I can report that it will be kept alive, as I have added it to BJAODN. RobertG ♬ talk 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is splendid but I guess it has to go to BJAODN. --Bduke 09:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there's nothing comedic, satirical or clever about this. MLA 09:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, of course, move to BJAODN if you like. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• The information here should of course be Deleted, but I have heard of the term "Corrider Cricket," a form of cricket similar to Beach cricket. So I also suggest a Redirect. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 10:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; WP:NFT. --Muchness 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, send it BJAODN. --Terence Ong 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per DaGizza. JPD (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though it's great. — ciphergoth 17:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Such a shame, this is a beautiful article. Actually, as DaGizza points out, the term is used, usually for the sort of casual five minute larking around type game played when things are slow at the office, with the waste basket as a wicket, and a rolled up newspaper and screwed up piece of paper as bat and ball. It probably does deserve a mention in that form in beach cricket 9with this redirecting) as he suggests. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is an excellent article about a genuine game and the pure humour and wit simply add to the brilliance of the article. A great piece of work. DaGizza, you are a true icon for the typical office worker making their own amusements when work is boring. Great work.Albino Ibis 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN. Stifle 00:17, 28 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 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rishi Patel

Delete. Spoof/vanity. No sources, not verifiable. zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified. Reads like a (lame) joke article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A reasonable time on google can't find any reference to Rishi. Likely spoof. Kcordina 14:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spoof. Can't we speedy this? — ciphergoth 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even if true, it is definitely not notable enough. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:43, 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 speedy delete - Daphne A should have used {{db-author}}. -- RHaworth 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Bamboo_Annals"

article added with quotes in name (sorry); same article now exists without the quoted name Daphne A 09:32, 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. -Splash^talk 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decreto Número 99.226, de 27 de Abril de 1990

This page has been left in a largely untranslated format for over a year now. It consists of a one sentence summary in English of some Brazilian polemical decree and then a page worth of the actual text of the law. This doesn't really need an encyclopedia entry for it, certainly not with a page title like this. Cyde Weys 09:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Portuguese Wikisource. Thryduulf 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Portuguese Wikisource, if same exists. Stifle 00:17, 28 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 02:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stony Brook Press Editorial Board

PRODded, but undone by article creator without comment. A list of the entire editorial board of a college newspaper. Unencyclopedic/Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information/Non-notable. Randwicked Alex B 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The Stony Brook is a student newspaper, and this is merely a list of who works on it. Wikipedia is not a directory of names. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree, list of students who worked on the paper. nn for now. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 10:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Aaron 11:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kcordina 14:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 17:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Fascists You guys are all fascists. Thousands of people have worked on this paper, you pathetic morons. These are just the editors in charge. What's so bad about having it there? Is it taking up precious space? If the wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of information, why is everyone such a dictator as to what stays? And to the person who said "this is merely a list of who works on it": your negatism and complete ignorance astounds me beyond belief. Above those qualities, however, is your narrow reductionism. Go back to the list and look at the part that says Editorial Board before you cast your self-assured opinion of marginalization and belittlement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.212.65 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-23 12:30:22.

"Negatism?" CrypticBacon 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The board itself has no notability outside of the context of the paper. Also, part of the list already appears in The Stony Brook Press article. C.Fred 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another week, another accusation of fascism and cultural illiteracy. This information belongs on a web site, not on Wikipedia. — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As far as the fascism, well, hey, Wikipedia is not a democracy! --Kinu ^t/_c 07:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, unencyclopedic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-24 08:11Z
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. CrypticBacon 08:39, 28 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 02:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeport3volution

Appears to be non-notable guild vanity. A remarkably small number of google hits for a guild [24] the count of members is also very small - my own forum has more. MLA 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity; of little interest to anyone outside of the guild. --Cymsdale 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cymsdale. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — ciphergoth 17:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Bkwillwm 01:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- was one of the major Freelancer servers and is still well-known in the Freelancer community. To respond to the first deletion comment, this gaming site (not a guild or clan) had over 1500 multiplayer accounts. --Monty 01:21, 28 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 Redirect to Vinalia. - Bobet 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Festival of Vinalia

Delete, Context free and not verifiable Xorkl000 10:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Cymsdale 10:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 11:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vinalia. These were real Roman wine festivals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. I was just about to cleanup this one, but we have an existing article already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sjakkalle. Stifle 00:16, 28 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 02:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] File processing

Delete, a novel redefinition Xorkl000 10:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Terence Ong 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dicdef. If its worth saving, transwiki to the wiktionary Kcordina 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a poor dicdef. Stifle 00:16, 28 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. Whilst a large part of the keeping contingent is of unestablished editorial history, the case for keeping it is certainly good enough at present to outweight the case to delete it on the spot. -Splash^talk 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean McVeigh

Does not meet the criteria set out in WP:BIO A Y Arktos 10:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In light of your comments on the Noticeboard, could you please explain why you say it does not meet the criteria set out. He clearly seems to qualify as noteworthy to me, particularly in light of the free speech issues and his professional prominence anyway. I am very uncomfortable with this being deleted in circumstances where there is no meaningful discussion. Userfreespeech 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (very new account — ciphergoth)

Response to above comment - this article will not be deleted without meaningful discussion - this is the place for that discussion. My comments at WP:AWNB were: he might fit under "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - but I am not sure - I had not read of him outside wikipedia and only came across him because of the mention here [at AWNB]. As I have doubts that he has achieved "renown or notoriety", I do not believe he meets the criterion and hence my nomination.--A Y Arktos 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- A Y Arktos 10:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nominator--A Y Arktos 10:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC) or Merge and Redirect to Melbourne University Student Union as per rationale from MCBA Y Arktos 02:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

comment - despite Capitalistroadster's best efforts, I am not convinced he is usfficiently notable. While he is involved in a high profile case, there would be plenty more notable accountants working on potentially more notable cases. His work does not seem to be leading the profession, for example writing books, involved in ground breaking cases, ....--A Y Arktos 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. He's just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare. Ambi 10:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete -- nn. - Longhair 10:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge -- Now supportive of a merge into the Melbourne University Student Union article. - Longhair 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 11:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to keep, after rewrite. --Terence Ong 12:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Student politicians have to play somewhere, but I for one would rather they stuck to near-incoherent rants on their weblogs and left Wikipedia out of it. WP:NOT a noticeboard for people who want to publicise their complaints and petty hatreds. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, Capitalistroadster has done some good work on this article. I'd like to note that it'll take some effort to keep the student pollies from getting their filthy paws all over this one, however, and it's work I'm not willing to do. Good luck to those who are willing to try to keep this article from degenerating. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agnte 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Capitalistroadster's rewrite is decent. However it appears to me that people associated with MakeMcVeighPay and the collapse of the student union are incapable of writing a NPOV article about this person. I doubt this page was created for any other purpose than bringing attention to their cause - I note that MakeMcVeighPay does not have a very good pagerank. wikipedia does. [25] Agnte 10:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is not the motives of the person who started the article, or even whether the article as it stands is good or bad. The issue is whether McVeigh is of sufficient prominence to have an article about him. Adam 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. He's worthy of a mention in the MUSU article, but nothing further. Agnte 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The news reports make me feel that he is close enough to notable to withdraw my position. JPD (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Ambi and fuddlemark. Change to merge with Melbourne University Student Union following rewrite. The only notable content is directly in relation to the liquidation of that organisation. --bainer (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delete - Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, he clearly qualifies as the Liquidator of the Melbourne University Student Union which has been the subject of many dozens of newspaper articles. Unitypigdog 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (very new account — ciphergoth)
• Delete. Seems to verge on defamation. Unless all accusations are verified. Xtra 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Has been substantially changed by Capitalistroadster, so the article should be re-evaluated. There are still questions as to the relevance of a lot of the information and the notability of the rest. Xtra 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Merge into MUSU. Xtra 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) restore Delete vote or Merge. Page is prone to too much vandalism for such a minor person. Xtra 03:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His attempt to ban a blog on the grounds that it is contempt of court suggests that he much more than a *random insolvency practitioner*, I think a balanced article on the subject would be good. 138.217.97.27 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — Xtra 03:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Further comments: In The Age archives there are 63 references to him, that seems like a lot. I haven't looked at all of the articles because they charge for them but he seems like a prominent insolvency practitioner. 138.217.97.27 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — ciphergoth)

• Keep. Activities appear regularly reported by national press, involved in noteworthy event. Keep until shortage of cyperspace develops. Monicasdude 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - could you share your source for regular reporting in the national press? A search of the ABC shows nil result as does a search of Gooogle news Australia. There is an article in The Age as per Capitalistroadster's comment below. A search of the Fairfax archives, while it does come up with 65 hits, not all of these are relevant for example this football article from last season mentioning Dean Solomon and Mark McVeigh. The other articles, less than ten, all focus on Andrew Landeryou and McVeigh's pursuit of him, surprsingly not covered in the McVeigh article.--A Y Arktos 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of those articles refer to McVeigh's insolvency practitioner activities, including Melbourne University Student Union and other liquidations including Rug's Galore and prior to that. Clearly well known person anyway but involvement in the contempt of court action seems to put him well over the top. 59.167.73.44 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• From talkpage: Here's an ABC link [26] . Here's a HeraldSun link; the story has expired and isn't cached at Google, but the search summary is clear enough ("Liquidator Dean McVeigh now has 24-hour protection outside his suburban Melbourne ... "To say that I am a threat to Dean McVeigh is just comical," he said. ...") Also [27], [28] ,

[29] (subscription only, but clear Google summary), [30] . There look to be enough general/specialty press references to indicate notability, plus all those blogs . . . Monicasdude 22:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

copied from talk page by A Y Arktos 23:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly prominent and raises many other issues of public interest around defamation/free speech/ contempt of court proceedings. Userfreespeech 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (very new account — ciphergoth)

I've marked "keep" comments from very new and anonymous users as "small". I haven't checked "delete" comments (too many, and my suspicions weren't raised) but others are welcome to. — ciphergoth 16:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Judging from this article in the Age, he seems to be notable enough. [31] A search on an Australia and New Zealand newspaper index shows 23 hits. The POV in the article needs to come out. Capitalistroadster 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• please highlight if you perform a Renovation_Rescue so those who have voted delete can reconsider--A Y Arktos 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note, AfD is not a vote. But yeah, highlighting if he does make the article worthwhile would be good, as a hint to the closer that some "votes" were cast in ignorance. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup as above. 203.153.200.204 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — Xtra 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

• Improve or Delete. This biographical article does not address the global importance of its subject. The article suggests that McVeigh is famous in Australia for performing a (presumably) multimillion-dollar financial transaction. The article does not give comprehensive details on the transaction. I think McVeigh can be characterized, at this point, as a major player in a single local news story. Cdcon 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I haven't read this and have no vote but I strongly object to making anyone's comments small. Why stop at small - just change their font to junk so they can't be read at all! Très uncool. I've gone ahead and restored them to their former state. If people want their comments small, they can make them small. Admin's have full discretion to weigh the consensus however they want, including by how long the commenters have been users. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve the article. He is clearly noteworthy and arising from the contempt of court action will probably become much more so. 59.167.73.44 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — Xtra 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)) My account is anonymous but that just means I haven't signed in as a user yet, I'm no more anonymous that the other anonymous users. Is there anyone here who I identifies as a real person with contact information. If so I'll gladly put up my own. Perhaps everyone should before a vote is counted. The most relevant issue with McVeigh is his prominence, illustrated by many press articles and his involvement in newsworthy events. The issue of the quality of the article is a separate matter, it should certainly be improved as several users have noted. 59.167.73.44 05:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to comment about anonymity - the issue is not so much whether we identify as real people with contact information but rather that our wikipedia contribution history is known and in fact we are the sum of our edit history, not any identity, real or otherwise that we might claim, see for example this New Yorker cartoon. I have been editing Wikipedia for just over a year, and my edits can be seen and thus assessed through this and similar tools which navigate to those articles which I have edited the most. Whether or not my edits are useful or not is another question, but they can be identified and I am not anonymous as far as the wikipedia is concerned, because as a logged in user, my edit history can be seen. The benefits of having an account are explained at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Hope this helps--A Y Arktos 06:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am very interested in Dean McVeigh and I run a website and I believe the issue of businessmen shutting down other website is an unAustralian and an outrage.Kipps 02:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (User's second edit. Suspect sockpuppet Xtra 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

• And which 'blog told you to come here and say that, mate? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The "citation needed" notes on many of the key points indicate the article has verifiability problems. --Carnildo 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously this article was started by someone with a direct involvement in the MUSU matter, and equally obviously it has been attacked by others with some other kind of involvement. Since Wikipedia allows anonymous editing it really can't complain when this kind of thing happens, and it will go on happening at an increasing rate, as Wikipedia becomes better known, until something is done to tighten up the rules on who may edit. That being said, the MUSU case is a major story in Melbourne, and McVeigh is a fairly major player in it. It may be that all the allegations against him are bunk (I have no idea), but that doesn't alter the fact that they have made him newsworthy and notable. Obviously if the article is to be kept it needs vigilant editing to keep out everybody's POV. I'd also like to know User:Ambi's rationale for blocking User:Unitypigdog. He obviously has a direct involvement in this matter but so far as I know there is no rule against him editing on those grounds, and he hasn't been abusive or unco-operative. Adam 06:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have edited the article removing the unsubstantiated allegations and adding material from verifiable sources such as newspaper reports. No change of vote position from Keep. All people who voted Delete have indicated that they support deletion to be advised as requested. Capitalistroadster 09:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Gah! AfD is not a vote! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• For vote, we meant of course, expressed an opinion towards arriving at a community concensus view.--A Y Arktos 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please also note that I removed the AfD notice from the article. I will try to restore it. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• As indicated above, some people think that this might be better merged with the Melbourne University Student Union. That may well be a good idea especially if there is continued POV editing. Capitalistroadster 10:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I reiterate my view that the article should be kep, that is clear but equally clear is that those editing have a point of view. I certainly do. The article needs improvement, particularly with its references. Linking to articles in The Age and The Australian when they evince a strong point of view also doesn't address the problem.

One assertion by Capitalistroadster contained the assertion that one of McVeigh's targets "fled overseas" to escape "charges." No part of that is true and nor is it even claimed that "charges" were laid. Presumably if the target in question, Andrew Landeryou, had fled and then returned nearly a year ago, he would have been punished for doing so. If Wikipedia is sensitive about defamation as some suggest, such claims should be considered carefully.

The only Police investigation confirmed is into Dean McVeigh's actions, which is supported by a document that was at one stage linked to I see but is now deleted.

McVeigh's actions as Liquidator of MUSU, particularly the contempt of court issue is a big deal and needs a separate treatment from any article about the Student Union. They are very different subjects. I have been reading through the Wikipedia rules and notice the mandate to assume good faith. I see very little of that here and what seems to be my some a manic determination to make political points. There are real issues of controversy here and they should be addressed correctly. I would like to contribute to that and I would hope a compromise could be achieved. 59.167.73.44 12:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE. If any of that is notable (and true) then it belongs as a small part of an entry about the Union. Midgley 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Melbourne University Student Union as per above, and general precedent for people who are otherwise non-notable except for their connection to a notable incident or institution. MCB 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnnie Cochran has an article, and all he ever did was be a lawyer for prominent clients in prominent cases. Except in the matter of scale, how is this different? Adam 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Response liquidating the Melbourne Student's Union and "worldwide fame for successfully defending Simpson" seem to have different levels of notability. I would have thought the challenging task of defending Simpson and the novel trial indicates leadership in his profession. McVeigh does not seem notable in his profession - perhaps perfectly competent (I am not going to juge) but seemingly only a practitioner not it seems a leader breaking new ground.--A Y Arktos 05:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledged the difference in scale. We have articles on local councillors, even though they are not as notable as presidents and prime ministers. By same token, we can have an article on an accountant who provides services to notable clients, just as we have articles on lawyers who are notable only because of the services they provide to celebrity clients. Adam 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the defence of OJ Simpson, moreover the successful defence, was pretty remarkable, not merely a service for a notable client. More than 10 years later that trial is memorable and, although I have extremely little interest in US celebrity news, I would be prepared to discuss at a backyard barbecue ( but perhaps not stop a barbecue) on the subject "how come Simpson was not convicted?" No one got Skase, but I do not recall McVeigh's name in connection with Qintex. No doubt he was involved, I don't disbelieve the Age assertion - but not prominently. I think we should write the articles on the two professional bodies first and then look for prominent practitioners. As Ambi put it, the poor chap who is "just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare" should not be our choice of prominent accountant in Australia.--A Y Arktos 06:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that he was notably involved with several cases, would it be possible to merge him with OJ's trial? Andjam 10:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. --nixie 01:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Clearly notable involved in probably the highest profile Liquidation in Melbourne, Australia for several years. Like him or not - and I don't - he is clearly notable on any measure of public notoriety and involvement in newsworthy events. DarrenRay 13:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why some people express a view here about wanting an article deleted without explaining their view. I don't think their view should be considered unless are willing to justify it. DarrenRay 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging is an inadequate solution as it would delete all references not relating to MUSU, which while the principal reason for his notability would exclude reference to a highly unusual event, his removal by a Supreme Court judge in the Rug's Galore case and his involvement in other interesting Melbourne insolvency cases. I am yet to see a valid argument supporting its deletion, he is clearly notable on any objective test, with very many media reports about him and his profile as an insolvency practitioner and so on. The article is substantially revised and while different from what I would write, I am happy to accept as an agreed compromise so we can move on. I have many other articles I am keen to attend to. DarrenRay 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Melbourne University Student Union. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 00:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A notorious individual, high level of notoriety. Will be useful for business studies students (here in North West England we ARE studying him!). He is clearly notable on any measure of public notoriety and this is a useful

resource. --Sunfazer (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Gotta be some sensational grain of truth in here. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with MUSU. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ambi. Cursive 12:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For any particular reason? Per a genuine debate. DarrenRay 12:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Ambi: He's just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare. Nothing has changed. Cursive 12:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardly a random. Eminently notable on any objective test, notable in press articles, prominent events, especially MUSU but many other things. Very few Liquidators/Administrators are ever removed by a court for their conduct, this itself is highly noteworthy. To say nothing of the attempt to shut down critics' websites using contempt of court applications. I am neither a student politician nor do I have any time to spare. I would appreciate you withdrawing the personal implication. Nothing has changed from what? DarrenRay 12:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What personal implication? There's nothing there stating that you're the student politician that is being referred to. Nothing has changed from what Ambi said (which I directly quoted). That's what I meant by saying "Per Ambi" - I assumed you thought that something had changed between when he said that and when I was agreeing with him and hence felt that my justification was invalid. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Cursive 12:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should take Cursive's application of Ambi's quote as a personal slight. I happen to agree with them and that isn't intended to be personally against you. You're being too sensitive, IMO. Specially when you ask people to explain themselves further. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better put than I managed. Cursive 12:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Thank you, I'd be grateful for a response on the issues, because Ambi's assertions are a) false, b) a personal attack and c) not much of a contribution to the debate about the man's notability. DarrenRay 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've spent more than enough time on this AfD. I stand by my original comments, and disagree with your assertion about Ambi's assertions. Cursive 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambi's comments were not a personal attack. She was merely expressing her opinion. She doesn't think the guy is notable; I don't know what more of a "contribution" you expect. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd welcome a debate on the issues around his notability that I've raised. I may misunderstand the nature of this particular page and if I have I apologise in advance. But I think there such substantial evidence of his notability that there seems to be some reluctance. btw, if Sarah Ewart is your real name congratulations for editing without a pseudonym as so many do. DarrenRay 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Alhutch 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misogyny Day

Somebody's rather poor joke. Valentinian 11:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

According to February 14 it was "invented" on 14 Februrary 2006, but is "celebrated in many countries". Need I say more? Valentinian 11:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No, nothing more is necessary. JPD (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This clearly fails WP:NFT. I could declare today to be "don't shave your beard" day but would anyone else care about it? Would I care about it after a week or so? No. JIP | Talk 12:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JFD. Thryduulf 12:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in concurrence with JPD Nmpenguin 12:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JPD. --Terence Ong 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - can't we speedy this? — ciphergoth 17:00, 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 REDIRECT to Richard Prince. There seems little support for the standalone article but certainly insufficient support to delete it outright. This being the only suggested redirect target, it will do for now and is amendable at will. -Splash^talk 22:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nurse paintings

minor branch of a subject, vanity page, no meaningful content other than an external link. KarlBunker 11:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete For reasons above. Perhaps should be a redirect to artist Richard Prince's page. KarlBunker 11:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merging would be a good idea. A redirect would depend on how commonly the name is used for those paintings. JPD (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Terence Ong 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (rather than redirect) to the Richard Prince article. The title suggests an entire genre of work, but it's only Prince doing it. --Lockley 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is being expanded (by me). It is not a vanity page as it is about the artwork not the artist. The series of paintings is one of the few serious artistic attempts to explore issues of stereotyping of nurses. The artist is notable and the paintings have been widely exhibited. Google for "nurse paintings" gets 521 hits. " 'Richard Prince' artist " gets 191,000 hits. "Pulp fiction art" gets 6,350,000 hits. So the subject of this article is notable in TWO areas--nursing, and art. Mr. Bunker deleted the stub article with no notice or explanation and now has proposed it for deletion after I complained to him about his vandalism. Is there a new policy forbidding stubs? Deletion of articles should be taken quite seriously and those voting for deletion should do a little research before flippantly voting as an instant reflex. Thanks. THB 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize (again) for deleting the article without going through the proper procedure. The stub status of the article isn't the issue. I don't believe that a single series of paintings by an artist of less than monumental stature is a valid topic for an article.KarlBunker 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read my note above and review the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability, verification of notability, criteria for deletion, etc. I accept your apology but hope that you understand that that type of behavior is completely contrary to the basic concepts of Wikipedia. Thanks. THB 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Richard Prince may be of "less than monumental stature" but his artwork has sold for $US 1,000,000 and set records at auction. That would suggest that he is considered "important" in the art world, although I agree "monumental stature" still would be a stretch. THB 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the paintings was used on a Sonic Youth music album cover "Sonic Nurse". The article has been expanded and notability made more evident to the casual reader. THB 21:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Richard Prince. These do deserve mention, but not in their own article. Prince is minorly important in the art world, and as such definitely deserves his own article, but the nurse paintings are better mentioned as part of that rather than with their own separate article. And let's face it, the artist's own article is hardly big enough to need splitting. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Richard Prince per above. Stifle 00:15, 28 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 01:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFOs as unknown natural phenomena

This article is a mass of original research and pseudoscience, as well as making many vague, loosely-worded claims. This is also a POV fork from the main UFO article, which already contains any necessary information contained herein. Delete. Proto||type 11:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No, nothing more is necessary. JPD (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 17:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, forking from main UFO article; delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  23:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Xorkl000 12:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Allen 22:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if this can be verified with proper sources it should be merged into the main UFO article. Look at this example: Project Hessdalen is a project at Østfold University College and this BBCEyesAllMine 00:18, 27 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. - Bobet 22:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pukehou

Delete: Blatant advertising with no encyclopaedic value. If someone would like to add some pertinent detail I'll happily remove the delete tag. Nickj69 12:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a real place. The article needs wikification, but I don't see any particular advertising in it. JIP | Talk 12:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, it doesn't look like an ad to me. --Terence Ong 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does look like an ad to me for the only shop in town. Puke Who? Defunkier 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the place may be real but this isn't an article about it, it's an advert. If it becomes an article about the place I'll change my vote. — ciphergoth 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I rewrote the article. Not brilliantly, but its a start, and the place does exist. Jcuk 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added a bit more to Jcuk's fine start. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Stub and category added to article; it appears to be perfectly legitimate in form and content.  (aeropagitica)  23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looks fine now. --Martyman-(talk) 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Update Change my vote to keep - Good work done by Jcuk, Grutness and aerpagitica - I'll remove the delete tag. --Nickj69 08:02, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Clearly such a long debate could call for a lengthy closure statement, but the fact that this debate is somewhere between a "no consensue" and a "keep" is plainly clear. It strikes me that noone has mention WP:AUTO, though. -Splash^talk 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Craft

[edit] Original nomination and comments re process and authorship

This was first nominated for speedy deletion by WAS 4.250 with the comment "User:Nikkicraft says Nikki Craft is noteable because of links to Nikki Craft's websites". Quarl replaced the {{delete}} tag with a {{prod}} tag. This was removed by user:Nikkicraft (the only significant contributor to, and almost certainly the subject of the article). I am therefore nominating this here. (see below for my vote) Thryduulf 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC) LATER NOTE: It has been pointed out that user:Nikkicraft is not the only significant contributor. I saw the screenfull of edits by User:Nikkicraft but failed to spot that this wasn't the only page of edit history. My apologies. Thryduulf 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on this, do you (Thryduulf) plan to maintain your "delete" vote below? --StuffOfInterest 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my delete vote for now, but I remain undecided on her true notablity, so I may reinstate it later. Thryduulf 14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• CommentI feel it is important at this time for me to explain that I removed the text because I thought it was saying that unless the user Nikkicraft thought the article was noteworthy, and if I did not directly challenge the request for deletion that the page woud be automatically deleted. So I thought I needed to show that I challenged it by removing the order for deletion. Seemed reasonable at the time, but now I understand it was not appropriate and I want to apologize to y'all for doing so. I thought the entry had been made by automation somehow since it was unreadable codes. : ) Well you have to admit until you understand this process it can be pretty mystifying. Also, while I'm entering this I would like to clear up that I do not know the person who started this wikipedia entry, nor had I ever had any conversation with him at the time he started this page. Nikkicraft 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nikkicraft, all your actions were completely proper. The article should never have been speedied -- that is basically for nonsense like JOE SHMOE ROXXORS HE IS THE COOLEST KID IN SKOOL etc. -- and the Prod delete system specifically calls for moving articles here to AfD if there is any reasonable basis for discussion, which it appears that there is. Herostratus 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominator's vote and following comments and evidence

• Delete. I feel there are definate NPOV and WP:VAIN issues with this, and my gut feeling is that the assertions of notablity probably overstate Nikki's influence on them. If sources are provided that prove me wrong, and the article is made NPOV, then I will reconsider my vote. Thryduulf 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. Almost all the google hits that I've been able to find have been from her own sites, of those that haven't many seem to be mirrors/copies of a few articles she's written. There are also hits for an artist/sculptor called Nikki ("Nikki's Craft") which are proving hard to filter out. Thryduulf 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • no vote for the moment. Thryduulf 14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • My mind is now made up - see the votes following rewrite section for my vote and its rationale. Thryduulf 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nikki Craft is well known in the nudist/naturist communities because of her activism against and allegation concerning naturist activities. The bio article needs work (major work), but I think the subject is notable enough to keep around. As for User:Nikkicraft (T), this account should be forbidden from editing the bio article or posting links to the Craft related websites to avoid POV and self promotion. --StuffOfInterest 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For a less POV view of the subject, take a look at at a version of the article from before User:Nikkicraft started editing. Suggest rollback to this point. --StuffOfInterest 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article existed for almost two weeks before User:Nikkicraft came along (see the article history) and it is both notable and true -- and Nikkicraft is not the only significant contributor if you look at the entire history. Considering all of the recent media attention, it should be no surprise that people are trying to correct their own articles. It is our job as Wikipedians to help them learn how we do things and offer advice. Assume good faith!BCorr|Брайен 13:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Thryduulf. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I looked in vain to try to find anything that would make Nikki craft noteable. I found lots of self promotion for herself and her cause, but nothing to indicate she could get arrested if she tried. Not noteable. Not verifyable. WAS 4.250 13:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, a quick Google search turned up over 12,000 hits including sites such as MIT and this one regarding her arrest. --StuffOfInterest 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell neither of those google hits points to a source we can use in a wikipedia biography of a living person according to the wikipedia policy on that topic. Therefore there is no source for any content that we can use! WAS 4.250 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. Just googling ["Nikki Craft" Dworkin] demonstrates notability. Monicasdude 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, you get a lot of hits; because she has a lot of self promotion on the web. Actually find just one site we could use as a source for a living person that claims she is noteable. I couldn't find one. Can you? WAS 4.250 14:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You can say that as often as you like, if you're insistent on demonstrating your lack of competence in using Google. Though it looks more to me like you just dislike her politics and want Wikipedia censored to remove references to somebody whose ideas you don't like, even though she's well known, treated as notable in press and commentary, and her activities are often reported. Looks more like censorship and bad faith than any real question of notability. [32] [33] [34] [35][36][37][38] [39] [40] Monicasdude 18:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please, WP:CIVIL. --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Seconded. Thank you for this useful work, which has changed my vote; there was no need to be so rude about it. — ciphergoth 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Someone help me out here. I'm just looking foe ONE good source establishing noteability. I look at the source http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/edited_transcript.html that you provide and it mentions her in passing as having a useful web site "i recommend the websites set up by the activist Nikki Craft under various acronyms including Always Causing Legal Unrest (ACLU), which are very high quality." Having websites for your causes does not make one noteable. The nexy site of the nine you gave that I look up http://www.prostitutionrecovery.org/prostitution_timeline.html establishes she is noteable by saying "1984: National Rampage Against Penthouse and Hustler begins. Organized by long-time feminist activist Nikki Craft in retaliation for the December 1984 issue of Penthouse magazine where Japanese women were shown tied up, hung from trees, with several appearing to be dead. Over 21 communities participated in almost 10 states. Hundreds of pornographic magazines were destroyed, resulting in over a hundred individual arrests and countless raised consciousnesses" Great I think, noteabilty. So I google "National Rampage Against Penthouse and Hustler", the noteable organization she organized and ggofle show one hit, this one! Is this site written by Nikki or a friend? I don't know. I'm still lacking a good source. So instaed of researching the other seven, I put it to you: find me one good site that establishes noteability. Don't give me nine bad ones. Is there a good one in the seven I didn't investigate? Point it out. WAS 4.250 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Site 3: This is a speech given by Andrea Dworkin, and says "The full speech is also available on Nikki Craft's Andrea Dworkin tribute site", with no other mention of Niki. This link does not establish Niki's notability (its about Andrea, not Nikki).
            • Site 4: A "Timeline of the Sex Industry in the United States". "1977 Women Armed For Self Protection is founded by long-time feminist activist Nikki Craft", Niki's Nostatusquo site seems to say this group's last action was in 1974? So I'm not enamoured with the reliablity of the site. A group that existed only in the 1970s cannot really be fairly judged by online hits alone (imho), but what there are don't establish notability enough for me - other sources would need to be cited.
            • Site 4: This site also says (in the same bullet point): "Craft also founded The Kitty Genovese Women's Project, which released a list of over two thousand men indicted for sex offenses against women in Dallas, Texas." Nothing I've found online seems to give any more information about this group than this one action, that Nikki founded it and that Nikki is keen to mention she founded it. Again this appears to have happened in the 1970s so I'd be willing to concede it is underrepresented online. All in all, this doesn't on its own show she is notable enough.
            • Site 5: This is a scathing review by a feminist against pornography of a book that is pro pornography. Nikki's name is mentioned only once, when the reviewer lists 12 anti-pornography feminists (including herself) who the book's author does not mention. Quite how this is meant to show notability I'm not sure.
            • Site 6: This is about a small group (membership estimated at 15-30 women) at MIT in the mid 1980s, who demonstrated against violence against women. It mentions that the group "has arranged for groups to attend lectures and forums for such activists as Catherine MacKinnon, Audre Lorde, Andrea Dworkin and Nikki Craft.". This does show some notability, but nowhere near enough on its own.
            • Site 7: "But modern feminist figures like Dworkin, Nikki Craft, Melissa Farley, Susan Faludi-- their works & choice of words + issues harken back to the idea of women as OVEREMOTIONAL, VICTIMIZED, IN NEED OF PROTECTION [legal and otherwise], SENSITIVE, and most of all, DIFFERENT FROM MEN." This is from what is an opinion piece (I'm not certain whether this is a blog-type site or something more notable) "The Trouble with Modern Feminist Spitfires". This is the best of the sites so far, but again it just mentions her in passing.
            • Site 8: Is an interview with Andrea Dworkin, one question is "I noticed your Web site was built by Nikki Craft, the radical feminist who was active in Santa Cruz during the mid-’80s? How did you two meet.". The publication is a newspaper in the Santa Cruz area. Undoubtedly the best of the sites presented so far, its pushing the notability of Nikki a bit higher, but again I would prefer a reference that actually deals with Nikki.
            • Site 9: The site is "The Feminist Chronicles" a page listing notable events in feminism (from the pov of a feminist organisation) for 1990. It includes a two-line note of her protest over the Esquire magazine and subsequent arrest and 23 days in prison. Another source confirming what we already know, but providing less notablity (for me) than some others for being within the movement.
            • Conclusion: These sites collectively say to me that Nikki possibly does, just deserve an article, but in a large part only because she is very good at self-promotion. It would be very easy to get the impression that she was the biggest thing to happen to femminism in the 20th century, wheras it appears she has just been a minor player in a lot of events. It is a very borderline issue from what I've seen. These links do a significantly better job of proving Andrea Dworkin's notability, she definately does deserve an article. Thryduulf 23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Very thorough analysis. Still, I have to ask you a question. Is it better to leave someone in who doesn't quite reach Wiki standards of notability or to delete someone who just qualifies? --StuffOfInterest 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Generally it depends on whether there is enough verifiable information about them. But as a confirmed member of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD I'm going to give you a categoric answer. In this specific case, I honestly haven't made up my mind yet. Thryduulf 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Congratulations on finding the longest damn acronym I've ever seen in my life. Geez, and I thought the US Navy had some long ones. --StuffOfInterest 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other votes and comments following

• Delete the Nikki cruft. Defunkier 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:WAS 4.250. --Aaron 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but I have vaguely heard of Always Creating Legal Unrest, and if someone can meet the challenge above to "find just one site we could use as a source for a living person that claims she is noteale" then I'll reverse my vote. — ciphergoth 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly. If such a site is found (that we can use that says she's noteable); then, by the definition of the terms, we keep it. WAS 4.250 17:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Monicasdude and references cited. Kestenbaum 18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep references, along with my own vague memories, seem convincing to me. Though it needs NPOVing. — ciphergoth 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Few volunteer activists have as much work or success under their belts as Nikki Craft. The article isn't vanity, the subject didn't start it, and there is no doubt that the subject is definitely noteworthy. I'll dig up some sources that verify her work and post to Talk. -MichaelBluejay 20:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: I added references to the talk page for the article, such as the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News. May I also point out that finding a bunch of inferior sources does not prove the non-existence of better sources. -MichaelBluejay 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Do any of these sources establish noteability? WAS 4.250 07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per Monicasdude and references cited. I've personally been familiar with Nikki Craft's work for several years now. Radgeek 21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Personal testimony is not useable on wikipedia because of the No original research rule. WAS 4.250 07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no notability established independantly of crafts own websites. Jcuk 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Are the New York Times and Dallas Morning News not good enough for you? -MichaelBluejay 01:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The New York Times is a trustworthy source. You have yet to demonstate that the New York Times claims she is noteable. WAS 4.250 07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I started the article about Nikki Craft. Inclusion of Nikki Craft in constructive criticism of organized naturism and nudism is absolutely critical in presenting major points of view on the subject of clothes free recreation, especially as it related to clubs and AANR and The Naturist Society. Many noteable nudists and naturists are very familiar with Nikki's site and I think her critcism has been essential in leading to reform in the nudist/naturist community, which is still much needed to continue to provide for the safety of those who enjoy clothes free activities. I also believe her other activist work is highly noteable as well as a topfree equality activist and as someone fighting misogyny in popular culture. I am really surprised a hand full of people would move so quickly armed with such incredible uninformed arguments to delete this article given the breadth of her work, the fact that she is so well known. The debates she has had on Jenny Jones with controversial figure Ed Lange are significant enough by themselves. If it wasn't for her work, thousands would laud Lange as a nudist hero without understanding the darker sides of the man, which must be noted. The influence she has had over several decades of much-needed activism cannot be ignored.Dandelion1 03:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Testimont is not needed nor useful. A trustworthy source that demonstates noteability is needed. WAS 4.250 07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons this article deserves to stand based on the fact that she qualifies as a "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Your insistance on a trustworthy source for noteability is tiring. Policy also states "Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." I would like to refer this matter to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.Dandelion1 08:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This site should not be deleted as her work for women's freedom has been tremendous and spans over three decades. She was inspirational to my work and her web work is a mere portion of her contribution to further human rights. -- 63.249.106.83
  • Nikki is a nice person with a lot of friends, that doesn't make her noteworthy. WAS 4.250 07:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • WAS 4.250, I have to ask why you are trying so hard to ignore the evidence you claim you want? First you claim that you can't find anything notable about the subject, as though your own failure to find what is easy to find constitutes a lack of evidence. Then you claim the hits on Google for the subject's name are self-promotion. WAS 4.250, there are *over 10,000* hits in Google, and the subject did not place most of them there. Then I post on the Talk page references to articles about the subject in the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News, and you immediately reply that VERIFICATION and evidence is needed, as though what I posted wasn't good enough or that you wilfully ignored it. (You said you didn't see the references in the post you were supposedly replying to, making me wonder whether you're really interested to see what's being presented.) You then questioned whether these references prove noteability! (Perhaps you will read them and tell us, and if you will not perhaps you will not seek to dismiss them.) Dandelion1 then provides more evidence of noteability, including a debate with Ed Lange on television, and you dismiss this as "testimont". Another user cites Craft's work as inspirational and you dismiss this as "Nikki is a nice person with a lot of friends, that doesn't make her noteworthy." WAS 4.250, the user never said that Craft was her friend. The user said that Craft's work was inspirational. That ought to give you some clue that the subject is recognized for the work which is the basis for the article. Incidentally, I know that Andrea Dworkin dedicated one of her books to the subject, though I don't know which one just yet. Between multiple articles in major newspapers, television appearances, and recognition by major authors, along with the majority opinion of those who have voted, I would think that would be enough to confirm the appropriateness of having an article about the subject. I am beginning to wonder whether any amount or style of evidence will be satisfactory to you, and whether you have some personal bias which is causing you to resist the evidence so forcefully. If you respond to this I will appreciate your carefully replying to what was actually said, rather than what was not said, and that you do not make your case by ignoring what I have said. -MichaelBluejay 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with you MichaelBluejay, I believe WAS 4.250 is being unreasonable. I would like to refer this matter to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.Dandelion1 08:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Dandelion1, but I don't think mediation is warranted at this point, nor even possible for this particular kind of disagreement. We simply have a difference of opinion, and the way to express that difference in the context of an RfD is just to vote, which we have done. I am concerned that WAS 4.250 may be biasing editors who aren't paying very close attention to what's actually being said, but I will try to trust the integrity of the community as a whole. -MichaelBluejay 08:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • The fact that he is ignoring sources just seems to me to be a type of trolling behavior, he is just dragging this debate on way further than was needed to verify her noteability. But maybe I'm wrong.Dandelion1 09:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Though I agree with the thrust of your arguments, I definitely think the accusation of trolling is unwarranted. I definitely believe that WAS 4.250 is acting in good faith. As for your trust in the community, Michaelbluejay, note the number of changed votes... — ciphergoth 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
              • His move to use hastily use the {{delete}} tag I believe was not done in good faith and without regard to the noteability of the subject and the relevance of this article to others linked to it. He is clearly ignoring evidence. His actions are provoking endless debate that is not warranted given the sources provided here. How long to we have to keep responding to HIS denial of evidence? Is everybody who supports this article a "friend" of Nikki's to him? These kind of accusations are provoking an emotional response. Give me a break. My opinion stands. I believe his behavior is unwarranted. Dandelion1 09:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Please Assume Good Faith. When this article was nominated for speedy deletion the associated comment was "User:Nikkicraft says Nikki Craft is noteable because of links to Nikki Craft's websites". Which was a fair reflection of the state of the article when it was nominated, the only clue that this wasn't vanity for someone who doesn't know the name is that the article existed previously in a more neutral form. If WAS 4.250, like me, didn't spot the previously existing versions then he was acting in good faith. Speedy deletion requires two people (sometimes called "tag and bag") - the first person to nominate the article for speedy deletion, and then a second person to check that they too think it qualifies for speedy deletion. If both agree then it gets deleted, but like here, this was not the case and so it was not speedily deleted. Quarl replaced the speedy deletion tag with a "proposed deletion" tag which is the relatively new halfway house between speedy deletion and AfD. This was disputed so I brought it here. Re the 10,000 google hits claim, this is not notable in and of itself - a very large number of those are for sites run by Nikki, which cannot be used for external evidence of notablity per WP:V and WP:NOR. As has also been established above, there are also a significant number of the rest that prove nothing other than Nikki runs the website about someone who is notable. I know someone who runs the most informative website about Tony Robinson - that does not make her notable. Please read and respond to the comments rather than making ad hominem accusations. Thryduulf 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Keep it WP:COOL, even when - especially when - you think others are stoking the fires. I think this debate is now very unlikely to be closed in favour of deletion, so you can afford to relax. — ciphergoth 09:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Michaelbluejay above mentions "Incidentally, I know that Andrea Dworkin dedicated one of her books to the subject, though I don't know which one just yet." The book is Life and Death (1997) (ISBN 0684835126), a collection of speeches and essays dedicated to Nikki Craft and Dworkin's late brother Mark. Craft is also mentioned in the acknowledgements of at least two of Dworkin's other books, Scapegoat (2000) (ISBN 0684836122), and Heartbreak (2002) (ISBN 0465017541). Radgeek 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes and comments following beginning of rewrite

NOTE: MASSIVE REWRITE STARTED AROUND THIS TIME: 20:44, 24 February 2006

Rewrite? This page is only a few weeks old. There was apparently a premature call to quicky delete this page. People on this page requested substantiation. I have never been, hmm, let's say self-promoting enough to write a book about my work or even compile my "credentials" in a concentrated and thorough way. Too busy doing the activism and research. I'm doing so now at the request of those on this page who have asked me to do it. P.S. If it is not acceptable for me to enter this up here after the text I'm replying to and it should it go at the bottom of the section I will move it after I can find out. thanks for your patience. --Nikkicraft 02:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: It is inconvenient for some of you that Nikki's notability peaked in the 70's and 80's before the advent of the Intternet. Only a certain amoun of that supporint documentatoin has found its way onto the Internet, but there is definitive documentation of her activities in Lee Baxandall's publications. Thre is a lot of documentation about her in what amounts to old "newsletters" which are problematic for citations do we just have to do a better job at traditional scholarship. This woman is much more than just her own web site. Please give us time to line up better documentation. AWM -- 216.31.255.130 20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Craft's noteworthiness has already been firmly established. Those who dispute it will dispute it no matter how much evidence is presented. BTW, do anon votes count here? -MichaelBluejay 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What has been established is that we lack a consensus to delete, so the article will probably stay and its contents will have to be made to conform to the requirements of verifyability. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to read Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes and Wikipedia:Voting is evil to read Voters feel misled at the end of a poll if the numerically superior option is not the one acted upon. "But it won the poll!" they claim, and not realizing that a poll is no substitute for consensus, are understandably upset, feeling that their voices have not been heard. to understand that this is a dicussion in the form of a vote as opposed to an actual vote. The comments that make sense (are believed by the admins that delete or don't delete) are what count. The "voting" is not binding. What's best for wikipedia is what counts and thoughtful discussion takes precedence over voting numbers. At wikipedia, its the evidence and arguments that represent consensus that count, not the raw voting numbers. So far there is no consensus to delete. WAS 4.250 04:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • AAAAHHHH HHHAAAA! You are ready to conceed the point? Good. Do you know how to close this item out and properly remove the delete tag? You have to update the Talk page and logs also. It would be easier if you remove the tag ASAP. I can do that for you, if you like, but it is better if you do the tag. Let me know. I am off-grid right now, so you can notify me at amorrow@earthlink.net. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you maybe have a wrong impression. The tag's not going to get deleted until the AfD process is closed by an admin after the appropriate amount of time has expired. It looks like we can guess the likely result at this stage, but that doesn't mean we can close things early. — ciphergoth 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It was my vague impression that if AfD can be pulled by the orignal AfD'er. I mean, if someone stupidly put an AfD on one of the Presidents of the USA, you would think that they could also pull their own tag and save the admins the trouble of having to do so for them. Also, the article has undergone major changes during the AfD process, so maybe that is yet another case. If I am wrong that we can sew this thing up today, sorry! -- 68.122.118.161 15:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The AfD can be "pulled" by the original nominator, but this normally only happens when there is a clear consensus that the article should not be deleted or if the nomination was made in error - this rarely happens after the first day or two and never when there are good-faith votes to delete. The only other times a discussion is closed early are if the article is speedy deleted (definately not applicable here), or the nomination was in bad faith. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Thryduulf 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, there has been a massive rewrite an only one call, early on, to delete. I think that the article is now solid: notable, supporting documentation, the works. If the person who had added the delete tag had done a little more homework, they might have used a milder tag. OTOH, the article is now so much better that it was, for me, worth the crisis and an opportunity to be a hero to a lady that I have known of for almost 25 years but never just never happened to have contacted before. We talked for hours and hours as if we were old friends. AWM -- 71.141.235.70 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: This is essentially a vanity page for a barely notable individual. Web hits are the result of aggressive self-promotion on the internet. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Three articles in New York Times in the 1980's TOPLESS BATHER ARRESTED IN CAPE COD PROTEST August 26, 1984, Sunday FloNight 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Craft may be a net.kook and self-styled "activist", but she's definitely one of the more famous ones. She has definitely achieved "renown or notoriety" over a period of years. I disagree with pretty much everything she's done, especially her attacks on the naturist movement and on sexually-oriented media, and her tendency to find child molesters lurking in every shadow, but cannot contest her notability. MCB 02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reasonable grounds for deletion. --SpencerTC 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Michaelbluejay above mentioned that "Incidentally, I know that Andrea Dworkin dedicated one of her books to the subject, though I don't know which one just yet." For reference, the book is Life and Death (1997) (ISBN 0684835126), a collection of speeches and essays dedicated to Nikki Craft and Dworkin's late brother Mark. Craft is also mentioned in the acknowledgements of at least two of Dworkin's other books, Scapegoat (2000) (ISBN 0684836122), and Heartbreak (2002) (ISBN 0465017541). Radgeek 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Subject seems notable enough, and as the article stands now it's worth keeping. Edgar181 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've just had to delete three identical (with slightly different titles) articles that were simply advertisements for this person's website. She is clearly a determined self-publicist, and this article is a straightforward example of that. As Skinwalker points out, Google hits are unreliable in such cases (she's tried to add at least four links to hereself on Wikipedia, and who knows what she's done elsewhere? If she's so notable, let's delete this, and wait to see if anyone else starts a decent article about her.