Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (not sure if this falls under A7, but consensus here for it to go is strong). Petros471 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sativa Afghani Genetic Equilibrium

Cleanup tag since January, no action. This is spam for a nn product that gets <700 ghits - including verbatim transcripts of this article on answers.com etc etc. Bridesmill 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Answers.com is a WP mirror. Every WP page shows up there verbatim. -- Kicking222 01:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising, and a copyvio from the only external link. Kevin 00:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with above statement Sarahgal 00:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This is blatant advertisement, copy vio, POV propaganda. I'm surprised it's survived this long. Ande B 01:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kevin. -- Kicking222 01:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Ande B. --Starionwolf 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Crazynas 02:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kevin. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement, spam. --Terence Ong 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is an add. jbolden1517^Talk 04:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete some ad for weed, or something M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete non-notable product/ad. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ooh, do we get to use red for speedies now? In that case, speedy Delete – under CSD A7 – Gurch 07:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No point keeping this any longer. kingboyk 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Harchick

Proposed deletion is absolutely bloody useless for internet stuffs, being that some fan will inevitably remove it. Not a notable video logger, the only notability that the article comes up with is that he's been mentioned on other blogs. Woop-ti-do! Google gives 50 links for his name, Google news gives nothing. The only reason I found this was because I saw his sketch on Google Video, and thought, "I bet some webfan thought he should be on Wikipedia, and if so they're entirely wrong." We should just speedy this rubbish. - Hahnchen 00:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 00:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Kevin 00:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 00:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's applicable speedy category for this. Pavel Vozenilek 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dead end article.--Hezzy 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Sarahgal 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hahnchen I don't see any blood though. --Starionwolf 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete see above jbolden1517^Talk 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete being mentioned on digg doesn't establish notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. ~Chris {^t_c^e_@} 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks useless. -AMK152 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JChap 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a speedy, I guess, because there's some quasi-notability implied... But if someone did it I wouldn't object. Totally non-notable. Grandmasterka 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willie wortel

NN advert for a small chain of 3 shops Bridesmill 00:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN - fails WP:CORP Kevin 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Sarahgal 00:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable shop. Sorry. --Starionwolf 02:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, fails WP:CORP criteria. --Terence Ong 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete May be notable but article doesn't make the case. jbolden1517^Talk 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gyro Gearloose since Willie Wortel is apparently the Dutch name for that character. --Metropolitan90 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

but does the Gyro Gearloose article need to know that there are 3 marijuana coffeeshops n Holland named after him? Bridesmill 14:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Disney's Dutch trademark lawyers would be interested, but I've only suggested a redirect, not a merge. As a second choice, I'd rather this be deleted entirely than merged into Gyro Gearloose. --Metropolitan90 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable advertisement, or redirect per Metropolitan90 if the above statement can be sourced – Gurch 07:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what everyone else said —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osbus (talk • contribs).
• Delete advert. --JChap 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete then Redirect to Gyro Gearloose without merging per Metro. --Eivind^t@c 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn Jll 10:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speediest delete - mistake by nominator: the AfD tag was the first edit on this title! -- RHaworth 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fox Lane Players - History

Prodded by Melaen; removed by Ssimon9589. Just bringing it up here, though i must also vote delete as there's only 49 GHits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Were you aiming for The Fox Lane Players with this nom? That article was blanked by the author(User:Ssimon9589) so I've put a speedy G7/A1 tag on it. Kevin 00:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap. I forgot--AfD helper needs to be on the article page. Also the page has already been deleted. Close, please. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Not sure what the above means. But the blank article can be deleted jbolden1517^Talk 04:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – as blank article, under CSD A3. I've added the speedy tag – Gurch 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, cheap n' easy. Mailer Diablo 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Draven

Wrestler in a non-notable wrestling federation in Indiana. Fails WP:BIO. Metros232 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, and redirect to The Crow. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Crow per Zoe. Kevin 01:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zoe Crazynas 02:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Crow. Don't delete edit history (on the off-chance that someday someone figures out how to make it more notable). Armedblowfish 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• To be precise, redirect to The Crow (film), not The Crow. The comic book character was never given a last name. Fan1967 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to The Crow, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 03:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to The Crow. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Screw up? I don't see what this has to do with the crow. I'm seeing an article about a professional wrestler. This looks like some kind of cross link jbolden1517^Talk 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Eric Draven is the name of the main character in the 1994 film The Crow, which is why the other editors prefer to redirect this article there. This article is about a wrestler who does use the same name but he isn't necessarily notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Crow (film) – per Fan1967 – Gurch 07:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 15:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Crow (film) – per Fan1967 - FRCP11 12:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Crow (film) - per above --Angelstorm 02:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack shit

Dictionary definition plus nonsensical original ideas. WP:WINAD and WP:NOR. Erik the Rude 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I was new page patrolling and about to do the same. SorryGuy 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dictionary definition. Sarahgal 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a dictionary:

A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. --Jersey Devil 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research about a dicdef. Kevin 01:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Slang dic def, POV. Ande B 01:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was just created today, of course it's bad. Also consider a transwiki to Wiktionary. Armedblowfish 02:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC) changed vote to merge and redirect (see below). Armedblowfish 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, slang. --Terence Ong 03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki if others agree. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move This is actually a pretty good article on a definition. Move to wikitionary. jbolden1517^Talk 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- policy is very clear. Thanks, Jersey Devil. Reyk _YO! 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and no transwiki. This crap isn't worthy of Wiktionary, IMHO. Maybe for urbandic. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is quite idiomatic, and hence fine for Wiktionary, but it's already there. --Rory096 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – if Wiktionary want it they can have it, but I doubt they do – Gurch 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki, if keep isn't on the cards. A well known phrase. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and no transwiki, if wiktionary users want this article they're better off creating a new one. Captainj 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This term should mabye redirect to a page on street slang, but it is not a notable enough term. No citations, OR interpretation of unoffical terms. HighInBC 16:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• On the contrary, there are two external links, one of which is a reliable source (though they definitely don't cover everything in the article). However, I change my vote to merge and redirect to List of profanities. Armedblowfish 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete content, redirect to bullshit. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abdomonus

Um, what? Richard Sandrak is a child body builder. What does it mean to have an enemy? Only two Google hits for this word, and neither has anything to do with this article. And the picture is meaningless in this context. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just get rid of it now. I'm not sure why this just hasn't had a speedy deletion tag slapped on it. It's obviously nonsense- there's really no debating it. -- Kicking222 01:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom and Kicking222. Db nonsense. DVD+ R/W 01:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. I have slapped a speedy tag on it. Kevin 01:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Spam, deliberate nonsense. The Enki link clinches it for speedy. Ande B 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Patent nonsense (CSD G1) --Starionwolf 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense by Moriori. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chahrazed

This nine year old girl is supposed to be a "celebutante," so I guess notability is asserted. She only gets 9 Google hits, however, so I smell a hoax. Erik the Rude 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure where you got 9 Google hits from. This spits out two hits- both from tripod sites set up by said girl. The whole article's nonsense, and if it's not a hoax, she's just plain non-notable. I'm not sure what parents let their 9-year-old have such freedom on the Internet, but I hope she's not getting in any trouble. -- Kicking222 01:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, that sentence is untrue. She would be notable if any of this was true- but, of course, it's not. I was unaware a 9-year-old could have her own record company and clothing line, yet still have time to appear on Letterman. -- Kicking222 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity, possible hoax, etc...--Jersey Devil 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already mentioned. This should probably be speedied. DVD+ R/W 01:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any valid sources either. --Starionwolf 02:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feastoffools

Borderline patent nonsense. Erik the Rude 01:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete I would gladly argue that this page is absolutely patent nonsense. And, for the record, the site's Alexa rank is in the 355,000 area. -- Kicking222 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. Kevin 01:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Complete bollocks. Danny Lilithborne 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. Ande B 01:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Nonsense. Not notable. --Starionwolf 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per all the above. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know what this thing is. But there is a pretty active podcast called feast of fools. I'm finding tens of thousands of hits. There are parties which look like they are for the gay crowd called feast of fools. I think this is a real thing with a poor article which could get better in time. jbolden1517^Talk 04:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – as patent nonsense under CSD G1. If they're notable, someone's going to have to do a much better job if they want an article – Gurch 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and incomprehensible as written. The podcast might (but it is unlikely) rate a line or possible two in a solid article about the historic Feast of Fools.Bejnar 09:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 09:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-l Mayer (W)

Prod tag removed without comment; gamecruft; limited content is already part of Ergo Proxy OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN game character Kevin 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ergo Proxy. — TKD::Talk 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ergo Proxy, nn, but we could keep it. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Ergo Proxy I love the image lets not lose that. jbolden1517^Talk 04:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Minimal content already part of the Ergo Proxy page, if that section expands then it can be considered for it's own article. No point in redirecting since no-one is going to include (W) in a search; it was put into the article to indicate the source, goodness knows why it was included in the article title. Shiroi Hane 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Shiroi Hane. MCB 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no redirect per Shiroi Hane -- Hirudo 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Ergo Proxy no need to delete something when a simple merge or redirect will do; notable as she is the main female protagonist in the show Delete per Shiroi Hane Hobbeslover 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  As I said above there's nothing to merge as the information was copied from the Ergo Proxy article, and redirecting is pointless since the article is misnamed anyway. Shiroi Hane 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nekst Song

Non-notable blog site. Half the article is a copyvio from the actual site. Fails WP:WEB, inconclusive Alexa ranking since it's listed under the Blogger site in general. Metros232 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising for a non-notable blog. Kevin 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Well, hmm... no notability, blog hosted on freespace, completely an advertisement, "Nekst Song" gets 22 total Google hits... I think that's enough. -- Kicking222 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Starionwolf 02:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn website, fails WP:WEB. --Terence Ong 06:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as advertising, copyvio and whatever else is mentioned above – Gurch 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 09:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was indeterminate, but certainly not to keep. Relisting will probably not yield much either. Consensus seems to be somewhere between redirect and delete. Since redirects are cheap, redirect to Citizens Area Transit it will be. --Ezeu 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizens Area Transit: Routes

Someone had posted a {{dated Prod}} tag on this page. I felt that it should not simply be expunged without discusaion.

Apparently, Citizens Area Transit is a Las Vegas, Nevada Regional transit provider, and this page, obviously, is a list of routes of that system. I think I can agree that this, perhaps, is too limited in interest to be something that should generally be included in Wikipedia, however there is plenty of stuff that is of extremely limited interest, such as Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. I felt, however, that mere uncontested expungement was not the answer.

[edit] Recommendations

• If there is a page for Citizens Area Transit, merge the route information on that page.
• Make this page a subpage of C.A.T. as in Citizens Area Transit/Routes as opposed to a standalone page.
• If there is no general, substantial article on Citizens Area Transit, delete.

As I do not even live in Nevada, I have no preference and no opinion other than I thought this should be something thought over and a consensus formed rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 13:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up big time. There are way too many headings and subheadings, but I do think that there is some useful information here. Zepheus 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Citizens Area Transit with no merge. The bus system can do a much better job of maintaining information about its routes on its own web site, which it already does. [1] Few readers would look for a bus schedule in an encyclopedia when they can go to the official source. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete with an understanding this isn't policy. We welcome this kind of article if it actually had any information not on the rtc website. jbolden1517^Talk 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect without the merge per Metropolitan90. Kevin 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge, the history of cancelled routes. the rest, as noted above, can be easily sourced elsewhere. I fervently hope that contributors to this article keep contributing to wikipedia. Colonel Tom 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, no merge per Metropolitan.Captainj 10:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Metropolitan90 that few readers would look for it anyway, but I think that because of it no redirect is needed. As for the actual content, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. -- Hirudo 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Make subarticle of CAT and Clean-up - I am the user who posted the routes in the first place. I understand that most people will just go to RTC's website and find information there, but me being a citizen of Las Vegas, and me knowing lots of people in the hierchey of the company, they don't do a good job of keeping things up to date. Trust me. I would perfer this to not be deleted as I probably state some places that CAT busses go to that RTC doesn't even mention. I do have a link from my CAT website to CAT on Wikipedia, so persons who go to my site, come here too. I believe this is good FYI stuff, and since other transit pages have their route layouts (Like LACMTA), I think mine should stay. -- cello06 08:00, 03 Jun 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is difficult to maintain and is not really the type of information that should be in an encyclopedia. Zaxem 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mostly Rainy 12:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Razook

This is clearly a hoax. Only google hit for "Harry Razook" is the Wikipedia page. Reyk _YO! 01:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Clear hoax otherwise not verifiable. In this instance, the absolute absence of supporting on-line evidence is indicative of the non-existence of the article's subject. Ande B 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ande B Crazynas 02:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious hoax. Link to Harry Razook's funeral picture actually turns up a picture from an online family album for a family named Gutierrez. Fan1967 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, hoax. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a verified hoax and not notable even if not one. jbolden1517^Talk 05:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

YOO save this i met him and got his autograph he is a real person, and quite a carachter i might add. - nicky d

I as well have met this very disdinguished cricket player, is he a great all around player and person. I met him in the peak of his career and ever since then he has been known world famously, it would be very rude, and unmannerly to remove this page of one of the Greatest Cricket Players of All Time, Harold Charley Razook. - T.MARK

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Carson Daly. Prodego ^talk 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carson Daly Productions

Production company for one TV show (guess which). Fails WP:CORP. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment; merge tag added, but nothing done. Calton | Talk 01:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Carson Daly otherwise Delete Crazynas 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: Mention (in at most a sentence or two) on Carson Daly the fact that he runs this production company. Clear rest and redirect. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Carson Daly and if not delete it. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I'll go along. jbolden1517^Talk 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as much as can be usefully accomodated in Carson Daly – Gurch 08:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge then redirect savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I highly doubt a production company by Carson Daly would fail WP:CORP. The article certainly doesn't seem to think so, so keep notable production companies. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Highly doubt"? Anything to actually back up those vague feelings? Is Carson Daly Productions (NOT Carson Daly) the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself? Is Carson Daly Productions listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies? Is Carson Daly Productions' share price used to calculate stock market indices? Is Carson Daly Productions so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization? ("Let's carson-daly-productions that puppy!") Are there some important criteria you're using that I'm missing? --Calton | Talk 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It helps if you read my whole comment. The article shows it fine. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It helps if you read my whole comment: what part of "Carson Daly Productions (NOT Carson Daly)" was unclear? What part of Carson Daly Productions (NOT Carson Daly) is fulfilled by WP:CORP? What part of "anything to actually back up those vague feelings" was unclear? Hint: vague handwaving or "because I said so, that's why"? Not on. What, pray tell, actually separates Carson Daly from Carson Daly Productions? --Calton | Talk 15:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It's his separate production company which is developing television shows, among other things. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If nothing separates them, as you seem to be implying, then the two articles could be profitably merged. That might have been a better initial approach, than a PROD/AFD nomination, and also looks to be a likely outcome of this debate. WP:Corp is also a guideline. There is no need to reiterate all its points when you have already provided a link with your initial nom. Please show some respect for other opinions. Comments like "vague handwaving" and "not on" and the repetition of "what part" might be perceived as unnecessarily hostile. -- JJay 15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per above. -- JJay 14:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. --Terence Ong 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable junk info. Bwithh 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable junk info. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. - FRCP11 12:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, seems pretty clear since there's almost no content in this article. Vizjim 13:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Club Penguin

• It was nominated once before and, rightly, deleted as not meeting WP:WEB. Still doesn't, and the article is once again just an ad. Reyk _YO! 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not even a mention of why this site is notable in the article. Wickethewok 02:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Okay, obviously, this is spam for a completely non-notable game/web site. That almost doesn't need to be said. But I really have to add that this article is terrible. If this was an article on an incredibly notable subject, I wouldn't even vote keep, but instead go with "complete rewrite". -- Kicking222 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Crazynas 02:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ande B 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content (CSD G4). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete almost a speedy delete. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Its an add. We have a consensus lets just do it. jbolden1517^Talk 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – under CSD G4, assuming it is a recreation of deleted material, otherwise delete as a non-notable website – Gurch 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think this is a ad, she/he isn't someone from it, if you seen the VMK article though they have a link dosn't mean it's a actual ad, and spams just actual made up stuff I think here, might be just scrambled up letter or words that don't make actual sence, and how to you make a delete thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.195.228 (talk • contribs) 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete - This article has been vandalizated and it hasn't been fixed. It's supposed to be batter. Many people had worked on this article, which isn't short at all. I suggest not deleting it. 83.130.44.24 14:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G4, if different from deleted version, then it fails WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I remember this from the last nomination. If it HAS been been vandalizated and it hasn't been fixed, it really should be. It was an advertisement last time & failed WP:SOFT, and both apply now. If any anon editors want this retained, please fix the vandalizatation, ensure that notability requirements are met, then advise. Colonel Tom 15:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I've made no jokes re penguins in 'batter'; I'd ask you not to either Colonel Tom)
• Delete. non-notable. Cool3 02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite The rise in popularity of MMORPG's is a very notable topic and this game is a part of it, providing one of only a small handfull of MMORPG's safe for younger (pre-teen) kids. That said, this article is written more like an ad for the game. If it were rewritten with some of the same content but also clear and upfront explanation of how this game fits with the cultural phenomenon that is MMORPG, links to related articles on other popular MMORPG games, etc., it would be worthwhile. I was researching this game in particular and found this article useful. ~Kelly 14:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I see no reason for this article's deltion, and I believe it most definetley is notable.--Corporal Punishment 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah This article has proved itself proper again and I believe it has right to stay online. --Waitor 6:42, 30 May (UTC)

• Strong Keep The article has improved greatly, and I firmly believe it is contributive, helpful, and informative - a great overall help to players of the game, and people simply wanting to learn a little more about Club Penguin. Deleting this would be a great loss to all those interested in the game. More work has yet to be done, and the article is still to improve even more. So I give a firm request for this article to be kept on Wikipedia. Tetsumonchi 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

8Strong Keep This article is trying to be improved but it keeps getting deleted. Many new players on this game use this as a starting guide. Over 100,000 people play this game.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 this bull. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NoBullGames

Not particular notable gaming website. Alexa rank over 600k Wickethewok 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and per not meeting WP:WEB. Not even close. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not even close to being close. -- Kicking222 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This website is linked elsewhere on wikipedia, so I created a stub for it. They appear to be the leader in free online browser games. --JShaw 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Response - I assure you they are not "the leader in free online browser games". Miniclip.com, AddictingGames.com, 2dplay.com and hundreds of other gaming sites get more traffic than this one. Wickethewok 02:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It is not linked to from elsewhere, or those links have since been removed. An alexa rank of >600,000=Non-notable. Grandmasterka 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:web --Starionwolf 02:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Crazynas 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ande B 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Although I doubt this article will ever become halfway-decent, it was just created today. Maybe wait for a week or two? Armedblowfish 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep not entirley nn, has a few good features. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 15:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Amalas =^_^= 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge, bearing in mind a couple keep votes were cast before someone pointed out a good merge target. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Human Rights Record

POV-pushery that was de-prodded by User:Robert talan who seems to have been trying to fix it. I'm bringing it here as a contested prod, and my personal opinion is that it's unfixable and unencyclopedic. Delete Reyk _YO! 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let Robert talan try to fix it. Move to Robert talan's userspace. Armedblowfish 02:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepMerge Turkey's human rights record is a major issue and we should cover it, this is highly notable. The current article started as POV pushing but I'd like to see us fix this, I think it is obviously getting better quickly and this AFD request was premature. jbolden1517^Talk 05:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about Turkish Human Rights. I like the merge better than the keep. jbolden1517^Talk 12:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Move to Turkish Human Rights, NPoV, {{cleanup}} etc Keep Crazynas 05:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup This article is currently very POV but the answer is to NPOV it and improve it. Perhaps a new title /move might help to NPOV, as suggested by Crazynas, above. Ande B 06:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment We all have human rights records with stains on - so should all countries have such article in wikipedia? Medico80 08:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely. All countries should have, if you like, their 'stains' documented. The 'stains' don't have to be documented in a separate article - a merge in this case to Human rights in Turkey seems appropriate - but do belong in an encyclopedia. Colonel Tom 11:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Human rights in Turkey. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article discuss a notable subject, and it should be developed instead of deleted. -- Karl Meier 09:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Savidan, Crazynas & cleanup along the way. Colonel Tom 11:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've wikified and cleaned up a bit, but there are claims here which still certainly need more specific links to reliable sources. Colonel Tom 11:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above, there's no reason to have this article when Human rights in Turkey was there first . Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. This requires some care because this article has serious POV problems. It should be confined to the present Republic of Turkey and not include the record of the Ottoman Empire. Next thing we'll put the problems of the Roman Empire in an article on Italian Human Rights. Not all allegations are covered by the cited sources, and not all sources are exactly what you can call neutral. For example, the reference numbered 4, <http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/human_rights.html>, suggests in the title that we have "Findings of the European Commission of Human Rights", but it is actually a report issued by the (Cypriot Greek) Cyprus Bar Association. While all violations of human rights are deplorable, those found by the European Court of Human Rights are not nearly as serious as those claimed in the article. If it has been "suggested to some" (a new weasel-wordy formula) that it was only through strong international pressure that Orhan Pamuk was released, then these some may have been wrongly suggested so. He was actually not released at all because he was never arrested. There are serious issues, but they are treated in a much better way in Human rights in Turkey. It is misleading to list "Turkish treatment of the disabled" as a human rights issue. There are problems with the treatment of elderly in American homes for the elderly all the time, which is scandalous but should only be regarded as impacting upon the "American Human Rights Record" if this is condoned by responsible officials. In the case mentioned, the situation was promptly addressed as soon as it had been brought to the attention of vthe authorities. And so on. --Lambiam^Talk 12:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment My weasel words above, I'm afraid; previous edit was The arrest and trial of the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk has been criticized by many as proving that human rights and freedom of speech are not valued by the present Turkish government and it was only through strong international pressure that Pamuk was released., which I changed to The arrest and trial of the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk have suggested to some that human rights and freedom of speech are not valued by the present Turkish government, and ... . I changed this in an attempt to NPOV the article, based only on the text available. My apologies if this has not improved the article. (It should have been 'has suggested' rather than 'have', I see, but I'll let others improve it for now.) Colonel Tom 13:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Human rights of Turkey. --Terence Ong 15:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Human rights in Turkey. Lambiam also made some good points. —Khoikhoi 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Khoikhoi. --JChap 04:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Human rights in Turkey. - FRCP11 12:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Salvage to Human rights in Turkey. Wikipedia does not keep records. We do not need a second article explaining Human rights in Turkey which appears to be a POV fork more than anything else. --Cat out 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. --Moby 10:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. mix of everything possible, low quality, used as someone's axe. Use of the Roman Empire in Italian Human Rights equivalent. Pavel Vozenilek 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV push, as per nom; some content may be salvageble into Human rights in Turkey, but this may be done by normal editing. -- Heptor _talk 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. 5 keeps, 2 merge, 1 delete, and a couple I didn't really consider as self-contradictory, unexplained delete/merge votes. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korn Kovers

This album has been rumored and "confirmed" since January 2005 but nothing has happened with it at all. It seems to have enough buzz about it to be somewhat notable, but it's too speculative. Perhaps a mention in the Korn article but not a full article. Metros232 03:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Ditto Sdphost
• Keep The Korn article is long enough. And if you say that there is active buzz then this is notable. The main thing this article needs is some citations of where all this info is coming from. (note these cites were added after this comment was made) jbolden1517^Talk 05:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep – but only if the article is cleaned up and sourced soon – Gurch 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are sources [2] [3] [4][5]. But notice the date on all of them? End of 2004, early 2005. This is a side-project that never came through. At best, it deserves something like "There has been a long rumored cover album entitled "Korn Kovers" but this album has yet to be recorded or released as of May 2006" in the Korn article (it's not so big that it can't include one sentence more) then add the citation(s) to confirm this rumor. Metros232 13:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the article to reflect your belief the project is dead and included the references. Like I said above. This album is notable (given the coverage/buzz) even if it never comes to life. It never has to be released to be an article. jbolden1517^Talk 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per jbolden1517. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with Korn lacks citations and proof of enough notability to merit its own article.--Strothra 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge as per Strothra. Dead 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per jbolden1517. —Viriditas | Talk 22:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Korn - not-released albums don't merit their own pages. B.Wind 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone is quoting wind I should note there is an entire category for not released albums [6] jbolden1517^Talk 01:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a differance between unreleased albums and this though, as it seems to be purely conjecture at this point. I mean, the only current sources are over a year old, and one of them, I read, cites Brian Welch - who hasn't been in the band since Feb. 2005. If it ever was on, I'd say it's off now, not only because the band hasn't said anything in the space between now and when the sources were posted, but because Brian Welch left on top of that. A mention along the lines of 'In 2004 the band were planning a cover album, but no information has been release since' in the Korn article would suffice, in my opinion. Dead 10:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per B.Wind. --Metropolitan90 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per B.Wind -- Hirudo 14:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Moved to projectspace, so this doesn't belong here. --Rory096 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject:FACTS/FAQ

Sort of nonsensical, and I think it violates WP:ASR. Rory096 03:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Creationism is nonsense but excluding that I think these editors have the right to work together to get the creations POV represented in articles. Reluctant keep jbolden1517^Talk 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't referring to creationism being nonsensical, I meant the article has no context. --Rory096 07:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but why is this linked like this? shouldn't it be Wikiproject:Creationism Crazynas 05:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or at a minimum rename. This is a very misleading title and certainly not NPOV. When is a fact not a fact? When it is asserted by your opponent. Bejnar 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree it's weird and useless, but this is the wrong place. It should go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which has different criteria than used for articles, like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:ASR don't apply. --Lambiam^Talk 12:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I do agree as well, this should be moved to MFD. --Terence Ong 15:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I also agree. It should definitely be at MfD, not AfD. But, just throwing my two cents in: delete. -- Kicking222 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • To the contrary, it is in articlespace. I've re-opened this AfD for that reason. --Rory096 22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Crazynas

[edit] He Yining

Contested speedy tag, looks like maybe an attack page, definately doesn't meet WP:BIO. Should still probably be speedied DVD+ R/W 04:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC) It got speedied and then recreated with a pornographic photo. Maybe it should be blocked from recreation. DVD+ R/W 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Certainly an attack page. No value. HighInBC 04:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• respeedied and protected, plus a stern warning left on the perpetrator's page. Image should be deleted too - I'm adding it and one other like it to IFD. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kail

Notability concerns of a fairly high magnitude (exactly the opposite magnitude of the actual notability, in fact). Whiffs of vanity and spamvertisement, too. The related nn bio Bengoshia is also here on afd. 125 ghits only. Grutness...wha? 04:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 04:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Its an add. Pity I like the article too. jbolden1517^Talk 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bejnar 06:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as vanity/advertisement bio – Gurch 08:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Kale. Tearlach 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad. --JChap 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oh god please delete, totally non-notable, borderline speedy. Grandmasterka 04:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Conscious 04:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bengoshia

Chief claim to fame seems to be being a friend of Kail (also up for afd). 655 non wikipedia ghits, mainly forum sites. Grutness...wha? 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete huge NN problems jbolden1517^Talk 05:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as friend of vanity/advertisement bio – Gurch 08:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, totally non-notable. Grandmasterka 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003

Individual articles for each year of Romania's (or any other country's) entries in the Eurovision Song Contest are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be a single article for Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be Romania's entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not notable should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. Bejnar 05:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. The author, the same person in each case, should consider biographical articles about the bands or individuals listed in these articles who are separately notably and appropriate to include in the Wikipedia under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Bejnar 05:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2003
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Romania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2004

• "Delete all as per nom Bwithh 05:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all – and merge any useful information not already in Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest – Gurch 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Delete - there is no need to have individual articles as the main article is adequate for the purpose. There is not enough content to justify 50-odd stubs for any nation doktorb | words 09:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Move to either Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest or to the articles of the contest in those years. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom. Why is this on AfD? —Ruud 21:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or keep Bryce 22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at least Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 per the keep arguments on the group nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006. I dont think theres anything wrong with having the top 10 bands in a country listed in one of these articles. --Astrokey44 09:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely merge per nom, and ditto for the other countries -- Hirudo 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The lack of detail in the articles about earlier years is a sad reflection on the lack of Wikipedia editors at that time. Athenaeum 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • With the exception of the current year, all of these articles were all created this month by Alexandru Busa as part of 'Phase 4' of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision. Bejnar 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable event within the country of origin, part of one of the most widely watched international non-sporting contests. Vizjim 13:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a big deal. ReeseM 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not as complete as the United Kingdom set and not followe "Phase 4" properly, but as the 2006 entries were voted to be kept it therefore means older years must be kept as well. The information for the national finals is avalible to get ahold of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.1.20 (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 complicated. A gentle slap with a fish to Tijuana Brass for nominating so many different articles of different areas from The Elder Scrolls, and making the closing complex. The consensus seems to be merge most of them into groups; e.g., all the animals into one article, all the characters (except Almalexia who is kept) into one article, and all items into one article. Also cull out all info that is more suited to GameFAQs. But before all this is done, projectify to somewhere like Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Elder Scrolls/articles/foo. But a gentle caress with a fish to Tijuana Brass for volunteering to remove all those AFD notices. Because I don't want to do it! Hahaha. OK, go. Proto||type 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elder Scrolls-related articles

For convenience's sake, I'm listing all AfD candidates related to The Elder Scrolls computer game series here, due to their similarity. Please feel free to amend these page if you feel I have erred. I've tried to redirect all AfD tags on these pages to here. I strongly recommend to the closing admin to projectfy these pages to the Elder Scrolls WikiProject before deletion so they made be copied and included on a gaming wiki — most are well-written, just unencyclopedic. Please feel free to add onto this list as necessary. Tijuana Brass^E@ 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed articles for deletion:

[edit] Animals

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia is not meant to list non-notable creatures from video games:

• Alit
• Cliff racer
• Dreugh
• Flame Atronach
• Guar (Morrowind)
• Kagouti
• Kwama
• Mudcrab (Morrowind)
• Netch
• Nix hound
• Scrib
• Shalk
• Silt strider
• Slaughterfish

[edit] Characters

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia does not list non-notable, non-encyclopedic fictional characters.

• Almalexia
• Cephorus Septim I
• Cephorus Septim II
• Daedric Princes
• Eloisa Septim
• Jauffre
• Katariah Septim
• Kintyra Septim
• Kintyra Septim II
• Magnus Septim
• Ocato
• Pelagius Septim I
• Pelagius Septim II
• Pelagius Septim III
• Pelagius Septim IV
• Potema Septim
• Ria Silmane
• Sithis

[edit] Items, etc.

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia is also not meant to list non-notable items (if any) from video games:

• Amulet of Kings
• Daedric Artifacts
• Daedric Crescent
• Kagrenac's Tools
• Staff of Chaos
• Wabbajack

[edit] Discussion

Please add comments in support of or opposing these nominations below:

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. jaco♫plane 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - By the way, I realize the mess that such an en-masse AfD creates, so to save someone else the hassle, I'll be glad to take upon myself the chore of removing a bunch of AfD tags, deleting, or whatever else the consensus may be once decided by the closing admin. Tijuana Brass^E@ 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per excellent nomination. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Bwithh 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Merge, Transwiki, I could see having a page for each category, (eg. Items of Elderscrolls) but not one for each item, transwiki as per nom, and delete as per nom Delete Crazynas 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (with appropriate transwikification) per nom. It would be nice if Tijuana could find a flying buttress to help him handle this load... :) Joe 05:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep some of these are quite good articles, some may need to be deleted, but you grouped them in one bunch, so I have to vote keep for all of the bunch. In particular, Almalexia shouldn't be deleted, because it's rather major character, and there are probably others that shouldn't be deleted.  Grue  06:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If you (or anyone else) has a good knowledge of these games, it'd be helpful if you could list any of these noms which could be considered major characters or themes, as it may be helpful to break a couple off into their own AfDs. Think conservatively, though. Tijuana Brass^E@ 07:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You should split off Almalexia (or just delist it). She is a central figure in Morrowind and its expansions.  Grue  08:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Since changing the list would circumvent the votes already here, we'll mark it as a note for the closing admin to consider — thanks for making it known. Tijuana Brass^E@ 09:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, Delete, and Transwiki (I think that's the correct order) per nom. --Calton | Talk 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Merge where appropriate. So much gamecruft, so little time...I'm grateful that someone did the work to round them all up. In many of these cases, the main article isn't even that long, so I don't understand the need to make a ton of seperate articles. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most of them, although there are a few that seem to be quite good. If moving to wikis outside Wikimedia counts as transwiki-ing, then Transwiki the others – Gurch 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed, this is game guide info not for an encyclopaedia. I don't think there is cause for a 'creatures of TES' page, or for much (if any) of this info to be merged. Perhaps Almalexia could be merged to the Morrowing game page (perhaps) and likewise the Amulet of Kings could perhaps find a home on the Oblivion game page. Other than that, emphatic delete, and a thank you for the amount of work this involved. CastorQuinn 09:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, most of them should probably be deleted or merged eventually but I'm definitely against mass deleting them. The Elderscrolls wikiproject is just getting started why not give its a chance to merge and tidy up the article space before deleting a huge chunk of the content. Dv82matt 10:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge most but not all of these articles.

• Merge all articles under Animals into existing article Creatures of Morrowind.

• That article is currently under 15,000 bytes, so it can be enlarged with little problem.
• Exception: Merge Cyrodiil-related parts of Dreugh into Creatures of Cyrodiil#Land_Dreugh, with appropriate cross-linking.
• Edit the "creatures" row in Template:ElderScrolls accordingly.

• Merge articles listed under Items into a new article named (possibly) Major Artifacts (The Elder Scrolls). (See Template:TES-weapons. We could, and probably should, also rename that template to "TES-artifacts", and the corresponding category to Category:The Elder Scrolls artifacts.)
• Delete Ria Silmane: the article has already been merged into The Elder Scrolls: Arena. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ria Silmane.
• Keep Almalexia because that article is (1) relatively long and (2) a spoiler for Morrowind and/or Tribunal.
• Merge all characters named Septim listed above into a new article named (perhaps) Septim family. Could/should also merge other articles in Category:The Septim bloodline (excluding Uriel Septim VII and Martin Septim, who are too spoilery) into that article.
• Merge Jauffre and Ocato into Minor Characters of Oblivion (c/f Minor characters in Morrowind, which redirects to List of minor characters in Morrowind; see also discussion of article name in Talk:List of minor characters in Morrowind). Add a one-sentence item about Ocato to List of minor characters in Morrowind, linking to his section of the new article.
• Merge Daedric Princes into Daedra.
• Merge Sithis into Dark Brotherhood.
• Comment: Possible further merges:

• The Elder Scrolls are set in a world called Nirn, which has 6 continents (Akavir, Aldmeris, Atmora, Pyandonea, Tamriel and Yokuda) but only Tamriel has been used as a setting. We could merge the articles for the other 5 continents into (say) Continents of Nirn and use Template:main to point to Tamriel.
• Similarily, we could create (say) Cosmology of The Elder Scrolls by merging Aetherius (Elder Scrolls), Aurbis, Battlespire and Oblivion (Elder Scrolls), with a Template:main pointer to Nirn.

All names for proposed articles are just suggestions. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - I agree with CWC for the most part. There are numerous articles that, taken for themselves, are candidates for deletion and/or mergers. I'd volunteer to take over some of the work that'll have to be done on that front.

However, I argue strongly against outright deleting most of the content contained therein, with the only argument that WP is "not a game guide". WP is supposed to be a contemporary encyclopedia and content about one of the most widely-acclaimed RPG video game series surely is not out of place there. For comparison, just look at the lots of content for all the numberless TV series, comics or anime/manga series. It's part of contemporary "culture" (or sub-culture), for want of a better term, and it deserves its place inside WP.

However, I also agree that there are way to many articles just containing single-paragraph content; many of them are stubs. Therefore, mergering them should be the method of choice here. As I've said, I'm prepared to do some of the work that's necessary. Cheers, Something Wicked 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I also want to remind everyone about the widely accepted guideline WP:FICT. In a nutshell it says that minor characters and concepts should be merged into lists, not deleted. So, it seems like CWC's proposal is the most sensible way to close this discussion.  Grue  15:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I'm also in favour of moving all the smaller and spoiler-free articles to the corresponding lists rather than deleting them outright. However, I strongly advice against Daedric Princes being merged with Daedra, for the latter describes the Daedric race and its subraces, while the former is about the pesonalities of the various Princes. To put it simpler, Daedra belongs to the races category, while Princes - to the characters cat. --Koveras 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per the most recent three comments above. -- Kicking222 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge The content is good on a few of them. Deleting some of the more notable (Amulet of Kings, for example) would be bad, but it definetly shouldn't have it's own article. For the less notable stuff, just list them somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyne (talk • contribs).
• Merge - per above --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Cheers. --Starionwolf 17:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per WP:FICT. --InShaneee 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't; we already have lots of articles about games, even if that is bad, a few more won't change things much (and it isn't bad anyway). Bryce 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (Note - merge is fine with me too just don't lose content.
• Keep: for a nomination of this size I am simply unable to vote for deletion, nor can I say merge because I am not familiar with these games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This AFD will not conclude with a delete because so many articles have been grouped together, surely the nominator knew this. I have only played Morrowind (pretty comprehensively) and have some suggestions below:
  • Delete - All the creatures of Morrowind. Things like Alit, Nix Hound and Shalks were just generic enemies in Morrowind. Like Goombas but without the popularity, recognisability and lasting impact of Mario enemies.
  • Delete - Daedric Crescent, Staff of Chaos, Wabbajack. Although these are not generic items in the game, they are just one of many top tier items you can get. I can think of many such items in Morrowind alone.
    • Hahnchen 01:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Merge - Merge smaller articles, keep bigger ones. No need to delete anything. Havok (T/C/c) 08:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Triage, then Trim, merge and delete, including the continents commented on by CWC. -- Hirudo 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep&Merge - Several of the articles should probably be merged, especially many of the animals and the more minor characters. I know from experience, though, that the Kwama article and some others are a bit big for a list (of course that's a little biased 'cause I did a great deal of the work on Kwama). --Niroht 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (except Almalexia) - Almalexia is a huge part of Morrowind and the series (and I wrote half the article ;)) but most of the others could easily be merged. -Senori 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep&Merge - Almalexia ought to have her own article. Septim dynasty should have its own article with the Septim monarch articles merged and the data regards them listed. Tiber and Uriel VII must have their own articles, being major characters in TES lore. The creatures list should be merged; either into the Daedra article, and Morrowind creatures. D-Katana 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge per others. - CNichols 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge I did most of the work on the Emperor or Empress pages and if they are just going to be deleted it would be a shame. Make a list of Minor characters if need be, but if you cut it I highly doubt people will use this site over the TIL. -- Vohod (Please login and sign Havok (T/C/c) 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
• I am logged in -- Vohod (I honest to god don't know how to get my name on this stuff)
• Keep/Merge A lot of these articles should be merged into new or exsisteing articles like the animals and septims into one and the daedric stuff can be combined probably. Don't see a reason to out right delete it all WCX 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, gamecruft. However, since that won't succeed, suggest to nominator that he take the long route, using a bunch of suggested merges. Vizjim 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge keep bigger ones, merge smaller ones --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge. The details of merging will be further discussed on WP:TES, but generally are likely to stay close to this:

All animals will be merged in Creatures of Morrowind.

Artifacts in question will be merged in The Elder Scrolls Artifacts. Daedric ones stay separated.

Emperors will be merged in Emperors of Tamriel, Septim Dynasty, or similar-named article.

Almalexia is notable enough and requires a separate article.

Daedric Princes will stay, as already encompassing multiple characters.

Other characters will be merged.

This is a proposal for the final decision, based on listed articles themselves, TES source info, and the listed opinions. CP/M 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Transwikify. Good articles, but as the nominator said, not really encyclopedic. Would do better on obliviowiki. -- jeffthejiff 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into appropriate lists/articles per CP/M & CWC. Scoo 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I think that these articles are useful for people like me, who want to learn more about the Elder Scrolls creatures and such, so perhaps the articles could all be merged, But Deleting them is a bad idea, in my opinion.
• Merge - I agree with CWC about categorizing the content, and I agree with Something Wicked regarding the articles' relevance to the Wikipedia. The articles should not be as complete as a dedicated Elder Scrolls wiki, but summaries and overviews are appropriate for a modern encyclopedia. CrystallinEntity 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge I did most of the work on the Emperor or Empress pages and if they are just going to be deleted it would be a shame. Make a list of Minor characters if need be, but if you cut it I highly doubt people will use this site over the TIL Vohod 16:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per CP/M. In general, I agree with the nominator's rationale, but this is a bit much at once. Once merged, we can better assess the individual articles' notability. Sandstein 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fabulous, encyclopedic work on this game. Congrats to the editors who took the time to develop this coverage. --JJay 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per JJay, and I don't see why other series like Star Wars, Star Trek or the Matrix can have comprehensive wikipedia coverage and The Elder Scrolls can't. -mrbartjens 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Grue. --Evan Robidoux 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the characters and places, delete the items and animals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of every fictional object ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Merge per Havok - AHMYBRAIN 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge; articles on very minor game elements, such as Alit should be merged together into a smaller number of broad articles, instead of having a skipload of stubs, for example Animals of the Elder Scrolls (for animals like the Alit, but maybe not Daedric creatures), Artifacts of the Elder Scrolls (for stuff like the Wabbajack), Characters of the Elder Scrolls (for moderate-significance characters like Jauffre and Ocato) and so forth. Major characters, such as Almalexia, should keep their own articles. Minor Daedric Princes and articles about lesser Daedric creatures could be merged into Daedra, although Azura and Dremora (although that hasn't been nominated) could get/keep their own articles, as a significant character in Morrowind; and the dominant and most significant type of lesser Daedra, respectively. The same for other minor ES articles, as per CWC above, where appropriate. As a side note, the Oblivion Wiki seems specific to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, not the whole Elder Scrolls series. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all (nonstub) articles that can't be merged into a more appropriate list. A tremendous amount of work seems to have gone into organizing this, and I would hate to see it lost. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with some transwiki too much cruft, but some may be good for places other than wikipedia. Redirect/merge everything, really good stuff(that isn't appropreate for wikipedia) should get sent across the transwiki void. Kevin_b_er 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge stubs but Keep any substantial ones (Daedric Artifacts is the only one I see). Anything left over can be renominated in a smaller set. Eluchil404 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lillian Parker

Not quite WP:CSD but does merit AFD discussion as to notability and WP:BIO J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP: Bio, the IMbD link alone is enough Crazynas 05:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Though I love Wes Anderson, I'm not convinced that this particular production assistant has sufficient notabiliy for inclusion. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.Bejnar 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ever look at a film's full credits? Hundreds and hundreds of names. Fame and notability are not conferred by minor association with the famous and the notable. --Fuhghettaboutit 08:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as non-notable – Gurch 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Does being a participant on a network "reality show" constitute sufficient basis for being "notable"? There are some very frivilous entries in Wikipedia, many of which are game show participants, few of whom will be remembered-Charles Van Doren exempted. In my opinion, Lillian Parker has a record, albeit a short one, of notable accomplishment. She has produced a feature film, as well as working with Wes Anderson. Let's look at someone like Cindy Sheehan, who in reality is no more than a figurehead used by moveon.org, and really has no notable accomplishments of her own. Why is she notable? Solely because she is on the news? Why not just start notablepedia? Cindy Sheehan, Spuds MacKenzie, and the man in the question mark suit from the late night infomercials can all have extensive entries! Is notability by itself enough of a criteria for entry? Even though I authored the original entry, I will admit that Lillian may not have sufficient notability for entry if notability is a central criteria. I do think it is unfortunate that many totally undistiguished individuals are included on Wikipedia, while those who have succeeded in their creative quests, are exmpted from inclusion because they were not on MTV's 'Beach Party Real Life Survivor Apprentice 2006'. Perhaps pop culture needs it's own Wikipedia. If you've read this far, thank you for considering my viewpoint. I will use more discretion on future entries. Yakofujimato

• Delete - article does not establish notability. Perhaps if the previous poster would add to the article some information that would indicate more notability for Ms. Parker's work (and include references)... For the record, Yakofujimato, notability is a necessary condition for inclusion, but not necessarily a sufficient one. Please take a look at WP:BIO and see if you can show how Lillian Parker fits it. B.Wind 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Producing a film that has not yet been released or even been listed on the Internet Movie Database is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; deleted by User:Kjkolb under rationale "disambiguation page is unneeded after a page move and putting a link at the top of the article" - Liberatore(T) 16:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eutectic (disambiguation)

Going to any Eutectic page automatically redirects to Eutectic point, which has a link at the beginning for STLCOP's mascot. Albert109 05:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a two page disambig is unecessary, as per nom Crazynas 05:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – two articles can be linked without a disambiguation page – Gurch 08:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See Talk:Eutectic(Chemistry)#Requested_move – Armedblowfish 17:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pass the pickle

Prodded by NawlinWiki; deprodded by creator. IMHO this is a load of nonsense. WP:NOT for things made up in school one day, especially when they've only got about 100 Ghits M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: This obvious and absurd nonsense. Where are the reliable sources? --Hetar 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Complete bollocks. Danny Lilithborne 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Prank page, POV, nn, vanity, total waste of time Ande B 06:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete "Hey, wouldn't that be funny if there was a Wikipedia article with a picture of us drunk?" OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Note that of the 100 google results noted, a quick glance shows most (maybe all?) are not to the article subject.--Fuhghettaboutit 08:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading product verification below, still delete; a non-notable handpuppet.--Fuhghettaboutit 08:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete – as patent nonsense under CSD G1 – Gurch 08:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup but keep, maybe. this link proves its an actual commercial product. There's a notability judgement to make here, but all the above votes assume that its just fake. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G1 --Terence Ong 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Though I think I agree it's eminently deletable and Complete Bollocks, it's not Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense as it is comprehensible, and bollocks-ness is not a WP:CSD. If you want to tag it Speedy, please tag it (e.g.) "db|AFD discussion consensus" otherwise stupid people like me remove the notice.84.64.119.75 17:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete It looks like nonsense. What is the talk about alcohol in a childrens game? --Starionwolf 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, for obvious reasons. Not a speedy. Grandmasterka 04:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Ozark Patriots. Prodego ^talk 15:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Stadium

Stadium no longer holds any notable teams, and the only somewhat notable team to play there was a very short-lived minor league baseball team. Less than 400 Ghits. fuzzy510 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Ozark Patriots then Delete per nom Crazynas 06:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - merge and delete is not a GFDL compliant option. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ozark Patriots. --Terence Ong 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ozark Patriots. --Starionwolf 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006

Individual articles for each year of the U.K.'s (or any other country's) entries in the Eurovision Song Contest are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be a single article for United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be U.K.'s entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not notable should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. Bejnar 05:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. The authors should consider creating biographical articles (if they do not already exist) about the bands or individuals listed in these articles who are separately notably and appropriate to include in the Wikipedia under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Bejnar 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1957
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1959
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1960
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1961
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1962
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1963
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1964
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1965
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1966
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1967
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1968
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1969
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1970
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1971
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1972
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1973
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1974
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1975
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1976
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1978
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1980
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1981
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1982
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1983
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1984
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1985
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1986
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1987
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1988
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1989
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1990
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1991
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1992
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1993
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1995
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1997
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2001
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2003
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005
  • United Kingdom in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003
  • United Kingdom in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2004

• Weak delete all eventually, but that's a lot of articles. If there's useful information that would be better elsewhere, we need to make sure it is moved – Gurch 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A random sample of these has very little content. They should be combined together to make a real article that might be interesting. --Bduke 09:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there is no need to have individual articles as the main article is adequate for the purpose. There is not enough content to justify 50-odd stubs for any nation doktorb | words 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to either United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest or to the articles of the contest in those years. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all Not encyclopedic. Fancruft abuse of Wikipedia. Bwithh 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except UK in Eurovision contest 2006, unencyclopaedic, this is not a sports event, Eurovisioncruft. --Terence Ong 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all No, it isn't a sport event, but it gets much higher ratings than most sports events. Osomec 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all I would expect to see these for future years, so we should keep the old ones too. They contain useful information and biographical articles are no substitute for these articles which put things in context. Each year's contest was covered by a highly rated television programme or series of programmes that probably wouldn't have been nominated if it was separate from the Eurovision Song Contest. Nathcer 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That is the point exactly, these are not independantly notable. The question is not whether they are useful to someone, it is whether they belong in an encyclopedia. Eurovision has its own wiki.Bejnar 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all They belong in this encyclopedia. Twittenham 22:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Nathcer. Also, its clear that national song contests are notable. Hornplease 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep some have detail which would be too much for the main UK article --Astrokey44 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all, per 9cds. This is just way way overkill. -- Hirudo 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all, per 9cds and Hirudo. There is no problem in creating one big page for all of the UK Eurovision events. Eurovision is a strong point of European culture, so it is important that this event is recognized in Wikipedia, as one complete page. To say that it is worth having a two sentence entry on the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1985 isn't worth the effort put into it. Sens08 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Of wide interest. A single article would just be a future subdivision waiting to happen. Athenaeum 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all would read far better on one page. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not much detail has been added, but it can be expanded with time and information is useful to those who want to know what song was chosen and how. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.4.208 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 May 2006.

• Comment Oh no: the sockpuppets are coming out now. The above is the 2nd ever contribution of that IP. Have a look at what the 1st one was. --Mais oui! 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Back I am fonzy orignial creator of the article, forgot my pass unfortunatly but stumbled upon this deletion whilst browsing anyway, yes some are 2 sentance stubs but they never had the natinal final information added in.

• editI would also like to note merging every national final onto one country page would be a right mess! 50 years of national semi-\finals would be far far far too large and would have to be split up anyway. The information is out there (altough for early years it is missing some). -(extra edit) it seems that the other eurovision afd on the same type of article has the concensus of keep this should be kept also as just keeping the 2006 entry is daft as you would expect to find every other year as well.
• Keep (with apologies to some fine people I see voting the other way). These are all national events, and all generate their own notable controversies etc. "Wikipedia is not paper" seems to apply here. Vizjim 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep Eurovision is a massive event. ReeseM 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Result of the other afd was keep therefor this should be kept too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.107.9 (talk • contribs).
• Merge all to United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. That would be a 50 line table (not too much for a summary article), with _ALL_ biographical data merged to the respective person or band biographies (if notable). The regional event itself may be highly watchable, but it doesn’t generate information except for the names of the winners, runners-up, etc. Any special occurrences (non-biographical) can be mentioned in the text of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Biographical data does not need to be duplicated, it can be linked. Bejnar 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• 50 lines??? there is far more information than a 50 line table. 1957 had 3 semi-finals and 1 main minal, thats just 1 year. some other years in the 70s had 10 entries for just 1 "final". all together that is more than 50 lines,

Questions Is that extra data memorable? Is it notable? Does it belong in the Wikipedia? If so why? What changes an ephermeral event, however big into something notable? Many of these singers would not be noted at all if they didn't appear in the tables, see, for example from 1957, Bryan Johnson (singer).Bejnar 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper,it can go into far more detail with every topic, national contests are a big deal watch\listened by millions of people, data is memorable (in some ways), data is avalible (altough a couple of early years do have lost data. 2006 entries were allowed so I repeat therefor older years are allowed too.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miloslav Ištvan

Hoax page - this guy doesn't exist. No citations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Georgeccampbell (talk • contribs) .

If you would have paid any attention you'd notice the external link pretty obviously placed in the article: [7]. So much for not existing. Antidote 06:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The reason for nomination - "this guy doesn't exist" - is patent nonsense, as a simple google search shows. There are CDs [8][9] and his scores are published by Schott, a very respectable music publisher. David Sneek 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per David Sneek and a quick google scholar search [10].--Fuhghettaboutit 08:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, person does exist, "this guy doesn't exist" and a "hoax page" is false. --Terence Ong 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with comment that a rewrite is needed -- Samir धर्म 02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marmion Primary School

Blatantly copied off the Schools Website - No Original Content Boochan 12:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite School in notable, but needs LOTS of work Crazynas 06:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite I believe we still go by the precedent that all schools are notable, but this one needs a complete rewrite. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – the subject is slightly notable, but a copy-and-paste is not the way to start an article. Get rid of it and let someone else do a better job – Gurch 08:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a school, it's notible. If it infringes copyright, do something about it. Copyright is beyond the scope of AfD. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per all above Jcuk 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. --Terence Ong 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. --Starionwolf 18:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Reason given by nominator is not a concern of this page. Osomec 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite - I may rewrite and make it a temporary stub until someone can add relevant information. Its sufficently notable, but not a good start to rip it off the school's website. - Boochan 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DjDTM

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

Non-notable website/bio - Rudykog 06:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ickalanda: Please do not delete, just information about the website.

Comment - I know, but it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability. - Rudykog 06:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go , it is not notable enough for example if it was a article about slashdot no one would have any objections but i've never heard of this website and i don't really see how it belongs in wikipedia all that much Kingpomba 06:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping it could be created before the site became super popular and the site is known in my local area (Kalamazoo/Portage MI) http://djdtm.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=723#723 - DjDTM

Okay hold on I am getting a screenshot of the number of views per month based of individual IPs that looked at at least 2 pages and stayed for longer than 30 minutes. -Ickalanda

Okay I have it:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4348/visits23nk.jpg

-Ickalanda

Delete Non-notable website.. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it non-notable with 6,000+ viewers? Yes that is not super popular but it has a steady increase and is well known in my local area. -Ickalanda

Comment - Usually when Wikipedians look for notability, they look for things like Alexa Internet rankings (DjDTM.com isn't even ranked), Google testing hits (DjDTM.com comes out at a little over 700), and sometimes forum accounts (DjDTM.com has 34). Notability has more to do with something that many people around the world may know about or have heard of, not just locals. - Rudykog 07:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A few people from Massachusetts know about it and some people from the UK if that counts. Also the majority of viewers do not register at the forums and just watch the movies.

Comment - Compare 6,000 a month with Masamania's 125,000+ a week.[11]  It still wasn't enough. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masamania) - Rudykog 07:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

DjDTM - Just delete the site already. Wiki is an unrealiable source for information anyway.

• Delete. Per all of the above.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Haakon 09:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not-notible, and the guy voting keep seems to be the site owner. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 18:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. No alexa rank. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Delete and keep voters were evenly matched here. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live Hot Puppet Chat

I had previously considered listing this for deletion, but changed my mind and decided to be nice and put a wikify tag on it so it might possibly become a slightly useful article. Someone keeps removing the wikify tag. It was replaced by another user and by a bot, but someone keeps removing it. I say chuck the stupid article. IceCreamAntisocial 06:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 50 hits on google, possible hoax Weak Keep possibly notable. Crazynas 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Here's my understanding of the story; the student-run station at UCSD (SRTV) included a program called "Koala TV" that made the news multiple times for pushing the free speech envelope and more or less getting the whole station banned (though now I think Koala TV has split from The Koala, the student-run newspaper, and is being broadcast again). I added a few external links to the story; additionally, these minutes from a meeting at UCSD include mention of Live Hot Puppet Chat in the context of Koala TV. (do a page search for "puppet"). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, barely asserts notability. --Terence Ong 16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; not every local news story is an appropriate subject for an article. —phh (^t/_c) 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. "Local news story"? Not sure how this is related to local news, but the article is notable enough to keep, although barely. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per phh. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's not that I'm against a college tv show, but this seems to have no notability outside of that considerably small community. National or at least non-regional media attention would make me change my mind. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently widely-known to be encyclopedicly notable. Zaxem 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SMARTCODE_CORP.

Article is an advertisement. Company is not noteworthy. Links to this article have been repeatedly added to RFID and deleted as linkspam. If you are connected to the company, or have made major contributions to this article, please disclose this when you vote. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable advertisement. Although cited as "Among the leading RFID manufacturers" by the Associated Press, not a whole lot of websites mention the company. — Tangotango 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They're notable in the field. (JohnCC 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC))
• Delete. A few PR "wins" doesn't make a company notable. The article is low quality and nobody seems interested in improving it, exactly because the company is not notable. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Keep. The apparent author has made a good-faith effort to clean up the article, and I've done what I can to help him. If you want to keep the article, please pitch in and help. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, only references are themselves and a passing mention on CNN once. Reads as a coorperate pitch page. May be notable someday. HighInBC 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They have over 166,000 entries in Google. Seems fine after cleanup.Shukarm 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable company with an article trying to sell their product. Also, note that the two people who have voted keep on this RfA are new accounts. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- in my opnion does not meet WP:CORP. Reyk _YO! 07:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Some of you are venting your anger against the blatant promo style of the writing. I'm the one who added the advert tag, so we agree on that. However, my reading of WP:CORP suggests the company is indeed notable. It has mention in CNN and in RFID journal, [12], the latter was cut from the article in an overzealous edit. Clean it up and keep it. OnPatrol 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This article has been bad for a long time. If somebody cleans it up, I will consider changing my vote. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit and will continue in the next days, the company is notable with Forbes, CNN, Information Week, RFID Journal and Grtner, AMR, ABI Research etc. - SC Web 02:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Point of Order - it seems that User:SC Web and User:Shukarm were created after this vote started.
• Weak keep per OnPatrol. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've cleaned up the article per WP:CORP - SC Web 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn company trying to get free advertising. Tychocat 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- cleanup was admirable, but no evidence that they meet the notability criteria of WP:CORP. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and savidan. Zaxem 08:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - further to my keep vote above, the article now references stories about the co. in rfidjournal, cnn, and information week. Notability is pretty clear. (Please remember I'm the one who placed the advert tag on this.) WP:CORP specifies:

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. -- OnPatrol 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep - delete is certainly in the minority (about 25%), and some of the suggestions to merge are not particularly appropriate IMHO, as Eurovision Song Contest 2006 was split because it was too large, so keep in terms of majority consensus as well as the fact that merging and moving content is not particularly feasible.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006

Individual articles for each year of France's (or any other country's) entries in the Eurovision Song Contest are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be a single article for France in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be France's entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not notable should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. This should be true for all countries with respect to the Eurovision Song Contest Bejnar 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. The authors should consider creating biographical articles (if they do not already exist) about the bands or individuals listed in these articles who are separately notably and appropriate to include in the Wikipedia under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Bejnar 06:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Andorra in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Bulgaria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Croatia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Lithuania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Monaco in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
  • United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
• Keep. All of them. As much as I hate the Eurovision Song Contest, there is simply no denying that even such a trivial thing as the selection of an entry is a major media event in every European country. David Sneek 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not major enough for all these articles. One for each country is fine, not one for each year and each country. --Bduke 09:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All of Them - there is no need to have individual articles as the main article is adequate for the purpose. There is not enough content to justify 50-odd stubs for any nation doktorb | words 09:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - many of them are still in the stub form, but for example the Poland article is fairly developed now (though still can be expanded significantly). Poland participated 11 times so far, so you would have at least 11 times this (plus other information) in Poland's article, which would make the article big and cumbersome, and therefore we would probably have requests for splitting into individual articles... Do also note that all these articles were created following the request to shorten and clean up the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 article.
  We have articles on each municipality of San Marino, which are probably all shorter than the shortest article on the list above and nobody in their right mind starts a campaign to delete them - they can all be developed. Bravada, talk - 10:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• This was added at the top of the page by User:203.96.106.90 and might be considered a voice in this discussion. It certainly does not belong at the top of the page, so I moved it here (Bravada, talk - 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)):

I think these pages are very interesting and they should not be deleted!

• Merge any and all individual per year by country articles into a series of articles in the form Country X at the Eurovision Song Contest and Eurovision Song Contest 19XX. An overall article per year and an individual article per country are surely enough. Grutness...wha? 12:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No point of deleting them! Empty2005 12:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to either France in the Eurovision Song Contest or to the articles of the contest in those years. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete all not encyclopedic. fancruft abuse of wikipedia. Bwithh 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it is all verifiable factual information, and to include this either information in a single page per contest or a single page per country would mean those pages get very big very quickly.- fchd 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not whether the information is verifiable, it is whether it is notable, and whether, if notable, it belongs in this structure, or in the biographical structure. A media circus in one year does not make something notable, see all of the UK years 1957-2000, for what they are worth now.
    • IMO, they are certainly more notable than the subject of today's featured article, an American High School. - fchd 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, no need for them. --Robdurbar 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, I must say despite voting delete for the previous Eurovision-related AFD due to lack of information. This year's contest is a current event and is expected to have more coverage on Wikipedia than before and will be updated quickly. Well, when the event ends, the main article will be very long and if all the countries pages are on the main article, it takes up excessive space on the article. --Terence Ong 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all This is a huge event in Europe, at least as notable as most of the pop culture stuff that is retained without challenge. There is too much to merge into one place, and it couldn't be properly categorised if it was merged. There is a template to link the individual articles, which is a far more user friendly way of connecting the material than converting it into one article - which would be likely to breach the article size limit in any case. Osomec 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia covers stuff at this level, and I don't have a problem with that. Way more notable than things like computer game characters which appeal to a narrow demographic that is over represented on Wikipedia. Nathcer 18:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete non encyclopedic fancruft. --Strothra 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, the case for deletion was not made. These articles give details on how each country came to choose its entry into the contest. There is no reason to merge them. --Asbl 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all These are decent sized articles in many cases. Twittenham 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. I hold no brief for Eurovision, but a good number of these articles are not stubs, and altogether they will be too large to be merged into a single - and horrible messy - Eurovision 06 article. In addition, this is f the main article is the place for the details of how each entry was chosen - which I think it isnt. Hornplease 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely tenuous delete all per nom. But only if the other articles can be merged into a main article like France in the Eurovision Song Contest. Otherwise keep. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all some good articles there, other events have this sort of coverage on wikipedia --Astrokey44 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, passes verifiability, notability, needfulness and "fun" tests. Vizjim 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - see the other Eurovision-related Afd's. -- Hirudo 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A good set of articles. Athenaeum 17:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 article isn't that large with most of the space taken up by tables. Merge infomation into the artists own page (for example merge Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 mainly into Silvía Night and put Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 into Arsenie Todiraş) and country information into Eurovision Song Contest 2006.Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this was part of phase 4 of the Eurovision Project, national selections for each year are very intresting take a look at **United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1967,**United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1963, etc. Wikipedia is an almanac for this kind of information, the 2006 entries are more complete, but others will be dealt with in time.
  • Actually being part of a Wikipedia project is not a reason to keep. This vote is testing whether or not Phase 4 was well founded in the context of the whole Wikipedia. Bejnar 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення)
• Keep, very notable in their respective countries. Verifiable, notable, people care about this stuff, Wikipedia is not paper, ... What would be the American equivalent, deleting all American Idol subarticles? (No, of course I'm not proposing that.) Weregerbil 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as I agreed with the forking of content because the content was becoming unwieldly large in the main Eurovision 2006 article. MLA 09:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They are not doing any harm, and some countries would need very long general articles, having been in the comp. for 50 years!!!
• Keep They are all part of one of the goals for Wikiproject Eurovision Greekboy 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Eurovision is a massive event. ReeseM 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, WP:SNOW. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Basement

Okay this is a bit of an unusual one. The current text I prodded and it was removed without comment. Based on text, it is a "2006 feature film" but no listing at IMDB. If unreleased: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If released, imdb omission seems telling. Delete unless verified and notable based on that verification. However, in another article by this author, (Steve Aaron Misiura), he refers to a 2005 film also called The Basement. This film is listed on imdb, and is a short. Google returns only results to IMDB for the film and writer in quotes. IMDB lists everything. Thus if this is the film referred to, despite the explicit text stating it is a 2006 film, it appears, nevertheless, not-notable unless wider notability is verified (Misiura himself appears notable for another film, mentioned in the New York Times here, so I am not nominating that article).

The author has also added a related article which I am nominating as well: Sperimenta, an apparently not-notable actor/film maker ensemble ({{db-bio}} tag is placed so this may become moot). Note that a related third article by this author, SEFF, was speedily deleted, and has been reposted and tagged by another editor with {{db-repost}}. Update: Speedy tag on Sperimenta removed by ip editing all the same articles as author.

One more wrinkle in this saga: if you look at the The Basement's revision history, you'll see that it was originally an article about a vegan cafe in Manchester England that is a "key resource for activism". Putting aside the impropriety of usurping that article because it had the name this author wanted, I am nominating that previous revision for deletion as well, as a non notable restaurant, so there is no call for just reverting to prior text.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The vegan café may have been not notable, but to simply turn it into an article about a film is vandalism. David Sneek 07:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. If it becomes notable later, it can be reconsidered. Bejnar 09:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. I can't verify the existance of the movie. --Starionwolf 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability issues; I was following some of this last night, and noted that a couple of the related articles were deleted, reposted, deleted... bit of a mess, really. Tony Fox 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect - to discourage recreation of the movie article. B.Wind 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-existent film on the face of it, hoax and nonsense if you start digging a little. I was particularly amused by the claim of editing by the Finbonacci sequence. Tychocat 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I AM STEVE AARON MISIURA AND I MADE THIS FILM, I'M NEW TO WIKIPEDIA AND CLEARLY BUGGERED UP THE ENTRY. BESIDES ACCIDENTLY ERASING THE ORIGINAL ARTCLE I TRIED TO USE AS A TEMPLATE. I THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA MIGHT BE A GREAT WAY TO GET SOME INFO OF THE FILM OUT THERE, CLEARLY I WAS WRONG. I WOULD LIKE EVERYTHING TO BE DELETED. I NO LONGER HAVE ANY DESIRE FOR MY FILM, MY COMPANY OR MY NAME TO APPEAR IN WIKIPEDIA. THE OTHER CONTRIBUTORS SEEM TO BE SMALL MINDED PHILISTINES AND I'D PREFER NO ASSOCIATIONS. FOR THE RECORD THE FILM WAS STARTED IN 2005 AND COMPLETED IN 2006, HENCE CONFUSION OVER THE DETAILS. IT WAS EDITED TO THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE AND IS NOT NONSENSE, A HOAX OR OTHERWISE. IT IS HOWEVER A SADLY BEAUTIFUL FILM THAT DEALS WITH THE DEVASTATION OF TERRORISM. IT IS ALSO LISTED (INCORRECTLY) ON IMDB - THAT ISSUE IS BEING ADDRESSED. I DO HOPE YOU ENJOY THE FILM ON ITS (YET TO BE CONFIRMED) RELEASE. CHEERS FOR THE SUPPRT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.6.205.22 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment to above Wikipedia is not a method of bringing forth information, but rather recording information. Wikipedia is not a device that belongs to everyone. There are simplier ways to promote a film, breaking the rules for personal gain is not one of them. Yanksox 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to above Well slap my wrists. As I said, please delete any reference

Comment I stand corrected on one point, apparently there is a reference to the russian filmmaker Eisenstein editing the movie "Potemkin" based on using Fibonacci numbers to determine how long certain scenes should run. (http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#films). However, my vote remains as above in this context. Tychocat 10:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Jackson (performance artist)

Non-notable performance artist. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Created by brand-new user Themightswissbrothel (talk • contribs) -- whose sole contributions have been to this article (Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?). Some details are, to put it mildly, suspect -- claims to have been named after a character in a 1994 movie, despite having been born in 1981. Quite a trick, there. -- Calton | Talk 07:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as apparent hoax (with regard to notability; I have little doubt this is a real person): 164 pages listing Bay Area Critics Circle Award, zero listing for them and name of author[13], same result for them and name of play[14]. All links in article are to blogs by author and his myspace listing. --Fuhghettaboutit 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly a big man on his campus but doesn't seem to be notable outside it as yet. Capitalistroadster 07:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as non-notable – Gurch 08:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as non-notable. --Starionwolf 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as lame attempt at a joke (his father died in 1909, but he was born in 1981?) B.Wind 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VNNTU

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Non-notable student organisation, best known for skirmishes with a similar group in another university. Google for "VNNTU" shows only 70 unique Ghits. [15] No source for the claim that they are "one of the largest Vietnamese student societies in a university outside Vietnam." Prod contested, with the explanation: "Remove the proposed deletion because i don't agree that VNNTU is not a notable student organisation. It is an organisation of about 500 bright and talented students." Delete unless they can be shown to be any different from the other 1,234 groups of "about 500 bright and talented students" in universities elsewhere. Kimchi.sg 07:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Any of you guys here read Vietnamese? JohnT155.69.5.236 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Precedents for deletion of non-notable student organisation articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Limerick History Society, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warps. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be of local interest only. Student organizations often make it into local news for pranks and the like. --Fuhghettaboutit 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. How about the fact that VNNTU is one of the two biggest Vietnamese bodies in Singapore?

Although the premier role of the organisation is to help Vietnamese students in NTU to get used and adapt better to the environment, it also plays an important role in bringing the Vietnamese people, which has been shut out for many years, towards the rest of the world. I have seen many good activities of VNNTU aiming toward fostering awareness about the Vietnamese culture and Vietnamese people.

4 years ago, it is surprised that although the two countries (Singapore and Vietnam) are not far away (only 1 hours 45 minutes flight), most of the Singaporeans had very little or no idea about how their neighbour country is like. When asked many mistook that the Vietnamese people are Chinese ethnic and speak Chinese; whereas many others think that Vietnam is still in war (the last war was ended in 1979)... Nowadays, I think that the image of the Vietnamese people has been more well-established in Singapore, thanks to VNNTU and its sister organisation, VNCNUS.

As for the claim that VNNTU is one of the biggest Vietnamese organisation in the world by the author, I would like to correct it as "one of the biggest Vietnamsese organisation in a single university in the world". Hopefully I can find some proof to back up this claim soon..

202.156.6.54 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Would any of your statements about VNNTU be verifiable through sources other than the group's records? If no reliable sources can be found for the article, :( :( For articles about school societies that demonstrate the notability we're looking for, take a look at OUCA and Cambridge Union Society. Kimchi.sg 17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Bwithh 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable, although I applaud the aims. I must add in an aside that claims re a 'classy' and 'advanced' voting system really should be referenced. (A reference would not affect my opion that this is NN, BTW.} Colonel Tom 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I speak Vietnamese if that means anything. I doubt that a uni student group can be influential in "bring the Vietnamese people .... towards the rest of the world" - can you provide sources that show many people identify their knowledge of Vietnam with VNNTU? Probably awareness between Singapore and Vietnam is due to things like ASEAN, APEC, SEAGames, etc, trading and tourism. Also - "bright and talented" is not particularly relevant unless they have won lots of academic competitions, etc, which does not appear to be the case. As to being "one of the biggest Vietnamsese organisation in a single university in the world", I'm sure this is wrong, the biggest would all be in Vietnam by a long, long way.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Worldwide Lexicon

Non-notable software project. SourceForge status is "alpha"; 0 downloads in the last week. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until it's further developed and becomes notable. Kevin 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – Wikipedia is not a crystal ball – Gurch 09:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There is little evidence of activity since 2002, but in that year there were quite a few mentions, including some press. Perhaps a mere update of its status is in order? Ziggurat 00:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So it was someone's CS research project which didn't get funded. Having a few mentions in print around the time the project starts is typical, and doesn't make it notable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, well, I'm not a fan of notability as a deletion criterion. The question of what level of coverage is appropriate to keep an article is more relevant; and I'm inclined to agree that what's present isn't enough, unless some more info can be found. Ziggurat 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rundernet

Prodded as Dictdef, neologism. That's contested by the creator who has left a note on the talk page. I don't know if it's factual or if there are racial overtones but either way it seem non-notable to me.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 08:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per reasons stated by Dlyons493 Arbiteroftruth 08:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – per nom – Gurch 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed, page withdrawn. Please delete.However I must stress that there were no racial undertones implied.I'm sorry if it was taken that way.Undernet in Romania has become hugely popular and has had a noticable impact on the network, both good and bad, as would be expected from any one country joining a network en masse. Rundernet 23:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HoboWars

Does not appear to meet the guideline for inclusion of websites. Google search returns 315 unique results, none of them too impresive. While Online Game of the Week and RPG Top Sites - Top 100 Site contests at first give the impression that this may have received critical acclaim, a quick browse shows that these are in fact meaningless with regards to reliable sources. This has had one round at AfD already but the debate was less than scintillating. In the spirit of full disclosure, I've had "eviscerate HoboWars" on my to-do list for ages. That however does not have any impact on the fact that this is one among countless online games, and fails our guideline for websites.
brenneman ^{L} 08:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HoboWars - Previous debate

• Delete- Per nom Arbiteroftruth 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- per nom (sorry) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 09:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• To be accurate. It is "hobowars" with no space. 42,600 results—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.22.230 (talk • contribs) .
  • Aye, thanks for that but there is still nothing signifigant there and even fewer actual hits: 263 unique.
    brenneman ^{L} 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pending any verifiably appropriate sources. Ziggurat 00:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Hirudo 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Delete it if you feel the need, but surely there are many other pages that need to be added to your 'eviscerate' list Mr Brenneman. You may want to start with RuneScape and Torn City. In fact, to help you on your quest I've prepared your Todo list for the next few months. You don't want people to think you're biased against one page and not crusading for the good of Wikipedia, do you? -- Weiner 13:22, 30 May 2006 (AEST)
• Keep per nom. Quite notable as far as online games go.  Grue  19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well articulated nom. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete eventology, Eventological language, Event-terrace, Eventological distribution, Glossary of eventology, Set of events and random set of events and Set of random events and random set of events, apparently keep Indicator function, simple function and random element. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eventology

It's self-promotion of User:Helgus, author of most of publications (with a few of graduates). It's non-notable in Russia, and not cited by other people --Vladimir Volokhonsky 09:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It cannot be found on Google (what CAN be found on Google, besides Wikipedia, is a lot of links to a page about an event-management firm for corporations, with this name). No papers with this word on ArXiv, one paper on MathSciNet, and not by Vorob'ov. Vorob'ov himself does not appear on either of these. Since I can't find any of the cited papers, and presumably couldn't read them if I did find them (since they're in Russian) I can't verify any of the content of the eventology pages. The pages themselves don't say anything besides a bunch of recurring buzzwords, the phrase "new direction in probability theory", and a few unexplained mathematical expressions. Nothing on any of the pages tells me what eventology is, what its results are, what it's used for (barring the grandiose generalities in the introduction to this page). I suggest in addition we delete all the articles in only Category:Eventology, since they appear to be nothing more than vanity pages for Vorob'ov. Ryan Reich 13:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think this AfD should be extended to cover the various subpages

1. Eventological language
2. Event-terrace
3. Eventological distribution
4. Glossary of eventology
5. Indicator function
6. Random element
7. Set of events and random set of events
8. Set of random events and random set of events
9. Simple function

and the category Category:Eventology as these pages loose meaning if the main article is deleted. The two struck out items are in category evetology but predate the the Eventology page. No vote on my behalf. --Salix alba (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see at all how random element loses meaning if the eventology article is deleted. After all, it is just describing a random variable taking values in spaces more general than real numbers, and that is certainly a valuable notion used basically everywhere. See my extended comment on "random element" below. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with all of the previous statements including those about extending the AfD to the other articles, for the same reasons that Ryan Reich has stated. MBob 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pseudomathematics. Cedars 10:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related articles

So, i'm also nominate subpages of eventological theory as non-notable and non-cited. [16]

1. Eventological language
2. Event-terrace
3. Eventological distribution
4. Glossary of eventology
5. Random element
6. Set of events and random set of events
7. Set of random events and random set of events

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

• • The last three contain no information regarding eventology. Although they lack sources, they discuss generally accepted terms in probability theory. I urge the nominator to withdraw the last three from further deletion consideration as they border on bad faith. B.Wind 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hold the bus!!! piling article onto article into a catch-all nomination throughout a 24 hour period doesn't do justice to the original nomination and to the people who have to check each of these out. Please don't change the nominations so radically over a period if you want any serious discussion with this (or any other) AfD. B.Wind 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't piling on, but the changes over 24 hours are a bit disconcerting. B.Wind 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, except possibly random element which looks like it almost might make sense if I spent more time thinking about it. The definition of random element is claimed to be due to Maurice Frechet, but I can't tell how popular it might be. Maybe I'm piling on ... but, the other nominated articles seem to use a lot of words to not actually say anything that I can grasp; they have general resemblance to topics in topology, measure theory, etc. but fail to indicate how the idea is unique. linas 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete random element, as it is a real term and topic. The Frechet paper is available here (institution subscription maybe necessary). My mathematical French is not so good that I can read this very quickly, but it's basically about random variables with values in metric spaces. In it, he uses the term "random element", and it looks like he's using the term basically as in the random element article. However that is just defining what I believe most people would nowadays just call a random variable (or measurable function with respect to the appropriate algebras). The modern use of "random element" is apparently not quite the same as what Frechet would call it, for example, see the Springer encyclopedia entry. That entry makes it clear that there is indeed something new here, e.g., random element with value in a Banach space is not the same definition as random variable, but involves the dual space. So random element should be rewritten to reflect correct usage, history of the term, and the relevant math content. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the dual space is what the Set of events and random set of events is about, it describes a form of duality between two ways of interpereting the phenomena. --Salix alba (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned up the article and incorporated some info from the Springer link. I strongly recommend people go and check out the new version. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Whats your opinion on the last two, are they similarly salvagable, at first glance the mathematics seems sound. (actually the same article)--Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think they have anything really going for them (or it, since they are both the same). Basically some definitions are given, and they appear ok, although it's not clear what the applications are (note: it appears there is at least one typo in the last half, but it's hard to tell, since I don't understand what's happening in the later half of the article). Also, the definitions are basically standard - special cases of the notion of random variable. So I suspect the mathematics is already essentially in the body of Wikipedia, whereas the terminology is non-standard. Random element has a couple of things going for it: 1) it's a real term with some history behind it 2) Usage seems predominantly for random variables taking values in Banach spaces, with a good amount of literature on this topic and using the term "random element". --Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, is there any connection between Complex Event Processing (CEP) and Eventology. Thanks--67.52.61.50 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, i think i'm really carried away with this AfD, because my own statistics experience in psychology allow me only suspect something wrong and para-scientifical in eventological articles... We deleted eventology and some co-articles in ru.wikipedia because of little notability, even for experts.--Vladimir Volokhonsky 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it is para-scientifical, just applying a novel approach. Possibly the biggest problem is the name. If the article had been called the theory of random events it would not seem so suspect.--Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• relist when consensus on article to be listed is reached. --Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Many thanks for very useful discussion. I am going to rename

1. Eventology Theory of random events
2. Eventological language Language of random event theory
3. Eventological distribution Distribution of a set of events
4. Glossary of eventology Glossary of random event theory
5. Set of random events and random set of events Duality between a set of random events and a random set of events

- Helgus 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think the renaming is going to resolve the concerns people have raised. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (db author). Tawker 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid sort

This is counting sort. The algorithm is poorly described here, and the author confessed to have invented the specific form and name of the algorithm described in this article on the talk page (a Google search - which is rather reliable in the area of computer algorithms - confirms that only Wikipedia talks about it under this name). Even if there were something new here, it definitely qualifies as original research. Also, er, for some bizarre reason the article text is an image. Deco 09:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That surely is strange. Are you sure this is just an alias for counting sort? Medico80 09:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure, except the description is a bit vague. The author says he showed it to a friend who said the same thing, if that helps. Deco 09:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as original research, and duplication of existing stuff. And WTF is with that image? – Gurch 10:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just found out. Its Commons description page says "Picture of rapid sort descriptino to prevent vandalism." Yeah, and prevent editing - it appears User:Pce3@ij.net is trying out some weird ideas. Deco 10:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    There is a similar statement on Talk:Optimal_classification#Cleanup; I think this user honestly believes this is an issue. It's easy enough to replace the image by something else, either in the article or on the image page, so I don't see how this is an issue one way or another. --Lambiam^Talk 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    I've replaced the images by text, easy enough to do, which incidentally also improves the layout. --Lambiam^Talk 13:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Question. Isn't what is described here a counting variant of Pigeonhole sort? I tried to read Counting sort and it seems different, but I find it hard to understand. After a brief and ambiguous explanation in the lead paragraph, the only description is in C code with so many intrusive low-level comments that I get lost when looking at the actual code. --Lambiam^Talk 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys can delete it or whatever you want to do. I tried to research the counting sort after Black said that's what it was just as I did when someone claimed it was a bucket sort about ten years ago. I have no doubt that someone else has discovered it long before me but I haven’t been able to find that out either. As for it being original research as the basis for its deletion go ahead I can't prove that it is not and in fact I worked on it for a very long time before it became the sort you now see. This raises another question. I thought that no original research applied only to a situation in which the claim about the research was invalid or could not be verified versus simply the person who did the work or made the discovery not publishing it on the Wiki. I mean if something is verifiably correct then what's the problem? Oh well bottom line for me is that the Rapid sort is what I ended up with when I tried to improve another sort after many, many, many days and nights and weeks and month trying to make that other sort better. Okay so do whatever you guys want it truely makes no difference to me. ...IMHO (Talk) 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) PS By the way I just through that part in there about it being a variation of the Pigeonhole sort but honestly I have no idea. I was just in a hurry to get it posted so I could go on to something else. My guess is that you guys will figure out what to do without any further help from me. ...IMHO (Talk) 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pce3. I realize it's disappointing, but regardless of its veracity it really does still qualify as original research, because it's a publication of your own ideas that have never before been exposed in any other forum to public scrutiny. Also, I'm pretty much certain it is exactly counting sort, which is an O(n) time sort, and is often the best choice of sort for elements with a very small range like your 1..4 numbers. It's not used in place of sorts like quicksort because it doesn't work well for elements that take on a very large range of values, such as arbitrary 32-bit integers - the array would have to have 2³² entries. I agree that the counting sort article could definitely use some work. Deco 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Again if you guys want to deprive others of the knowledge of this sort then go ahead. It does not matter to me. As for previous publication I published it on the Internet in at least 1996 and the only response I got was an email suggesting it was a bucket sort and I have never heard of a counting sort prior to hearing about it here. So as tight lipped as the ACM and IEEE and other such organizations are it could very well have been created and filed away long before my efforts resulted in its creation back in 1972. so have at it. If you don't want others to know that it exists fine with me. Hide it, burry it, paint it do whatever you want I can still enjoy the very elegant result of my hard labors without any further ado. Whatever you decide will only make a difference to others and will not make any difference to me. 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC) And PS again... As for being a memory hog that it is but then imagine an Internet protocol (why they didn't think of this one back then is a stretch for me) like a the echo of time or quote for sorting on the basis of the Rapid sort such that you simply enumerate you data like converting an "A" to ascii 65 and then using that enumeration as an Internet address which when done returns a count. Doing it that way would allow you to avoid incrementing through all of the addresses that had zero count values. Call it the Sort Port! When used properly the Internet can be a great place! ...IMHO (Talk) 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also I now have a "new" category name for this sort. I now call it an address sort. ...IMHO (Talk) 19:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from creating redirects (address sort) for names that you invented - there isn't really a standardized name for a search that depends on indexing using element values, although maybe there should be. I would just call them "indexing-based searches" - there's a table of them at sorting algorithm that you edited. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your Internet protocol analogy, but the ideas of radix sort generalize counting sort in a way that eliminates the large memory requirement by looking at a single "digit" at a time. Deco 19:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete unless the notability of this sorting method can be shown. There are literally thousands of sorting methods, many are very obscure variants. I do not know if this is obscure or not, but the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep an article in cases of notibility. HighInBC 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Not Delete Why? It occurs to me that while I don't care for myself if the article is deleted that I do care for anyone who might want to further research the possibility of overcoming the "zero" problem such as by the method of time delay or who knows what someone might come up with? For this reason I think you need to leave this article alone especially since the sort can be implemented in hardware where the "zero" problem can be handled in a different way than with software and where even incrementing through all of the zeros will be accomplished exceptionally fast. Think in terms of a sort chip, if you will. I am also including here below the discussion with DECO he moved to my talk page. ...IMHO (Talk) 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• • If you're interested in sorting hardware, see sorting networks, which are exponentially faster than the solution you describe (O(log n) sorting time). Deco 22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• • A hardware sort based on sending the data to the address bus of a random access memory is far superior to and different from a sorting network which is defined as follows: "A sorting network is an abstract model of a network of wires and comparator modules that is used to sort a sequence of numbers." Unlike the "sorting network" the Rapid sort (or Instant sort as is the name of its hardware version) is not an abstract model but a real and working hardware based sort routine which can blow away any other sort you can come up with whether hardware based or not. ...IMHO (Talk) 04:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(The following discussion with DECO is being moved from my talk page to here.) ...IMHO (Talk) 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some more details on counting sort

Hi Pce3. Just to emphasize that I harbour you no ill will, I've scanned a description of Counting Sort from the seminal textbook Introduction to Algorithms. They don't cite a particular researcher who came up with it, but the book was first published in 1990 and mostly describes classical results from the 1970s. I think if you take a little time to read it you'll realize that what it describes is very much the same idea that you describe. Bucket sort and pigeonhole sort are variations on these ideas. If you'd like to incorporate some of your ideas or implementations into the counting sort article, that would be great. Please keep editing, and keep thinking about algorithms too! Deco 19:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your research efforts on my behalf but I have already decided to reclassify the Rapid sort as an address sort. Thanks anyway. I will however read your material. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I've looked at the material and here is my conclusion. My work on the rapid sort began with an effort to improve the Shell-Metzner sort. I wrote this up when I published it on the Internet in 1996. I may even have a record of each step that was taken but they led me to this idea of simply using the data to address memory. Although there is a similarity with the counting sort in that the data in one array is used as an index in another array which is incremented the difference is that my goal was to both maximize speed and to achieve ultimate simplicity since at that time my favorite endeavor was logical equation reduction. Since I had already started from a sort that compared data I was enthused when it turned out that what I was working with did not require a comparison at all. Furthermore since my goal was to eliminate excessive baggage I in fact recall abandoning the idea of using more than one array or even a multi-dimensional array to accomplish the sort. My goal was to reach an end point which this sort represented rather than to then expand upon this idea and add multi-dimensions or other arrays, etc. Why you ask? Again my goal was to find the ultimate sort which the Rapid sort represents. ...IMHO (Talk) 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some implementation differences - namely, you directly use the input list as it is generated instead of an input array, you print your output instead of storing it in an output array, and you don't perform the intermediate loop on the array which the book is just showing for exposition (most implementations I've seen don't have it). But these are not big differences. As you can see, they also don't use comparisons or multidimensional arrays either. I understand that you're very attached to this algorithm that you've committed a lot of time to thinking about, but it's really nothing new and it's not appropriate for sorting elements that take on a large number of values, not only because of the memory required for the array but because of the time required for the final loop. There is no simple way to "remove the zeros" without increasing the complexity. Deco 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you have not read my further reply to this argument on the Rapid sort deletion talk page so I will repeat it here. Assuming that even though there may not be a client computer or server with a Sort port (similar to an echo or quote port) such capability can be provided by even the router that is home for a particular range of addresses. The idea being that the router or server or client computer returns a count that corresponds with each [identical] address that was sent. The trick then becomes how to get the counts back in sequential order. This can be accomplished simply by implementing return of the count on the basis of a schedule derived from the address [(converted data)] that was sent with a sufficient interval to overcome all types of potential delay. The same scheme could be [implemented] locally and even within the same computer that sent the data as an address with far more certainty [and precision] of the interval being long enough. Instead of an address sort you could call this a time delay sort. Also did I mention that I implemented this sort using random access memory and that an integrated chip that would do test for none zero memory and do the incrimination as well would probably beat any other method that can be implemented in hardware or software? ...IMHO (Talk) 20:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd prefer to discuss it here that's okay. First I'll say that even if this "port sort" idea were novel research, it still counts as original research - we describe things that are well-known (see Wikipedia:Notability), not things that we come up with on our own. For sort algorithms, this usually means they have to be published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal or conference.

As for the idea itself, it's a fun idea, but unfortunately does not yield a speed improvement - the key problem is that the nodes are unaware of one another. Just think of the case where there's two values, one the smallest and one the largest. The largest could not send its count as soon as the smallest has finished, because it doesn't know that the nodes for the intervening values don't have counts to send. To be correct, they'd each have to be allocated a time slot, requiring the same time as counting sort. Besides the fact that overhead makes it entirely impractical. Deco 22:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(End of discussion move.)

[edit] Only sort routine that can be implemented directly in hardware...

Why would anyone want to delete an article about the only sort routine that can be implemented directly in hardware? ...IMHO (Talk) 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Except it's not. It's not even a particularly good hardware sort algorithm. Deco 03:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Except? You forgot to show an actual exception much less a superior (and actual) hardware sort. You ever build a hardware sort? I didn't think so. ...IMHO (Talk) 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also everyone please comment on whether you think this method qualifies as original research or whether it qualifies as a counting sort. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just a special case of counting sort and has no interesting features. It's usefulness is limited by assuming that the data consists only of keys, and not of records that include a key together with other things. That assumption is the only reason it looks simpler. I've used exactly this method in programs since the 1970s and I'm certain that I didn't think of it first either. McKay 06:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Already Deleted B.Wind 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chan Khah Gek

A school principal, who sounds like she's achieved a lot for the school she heads, but under the bar of notability for an encyclopedia. -- Longhair 10:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 10:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Pretty hot for a headmistress though Bwithh 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Remember WP:TOE. ;-) —Cuiviénen^T|C|@, Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 16:39 UTC

• Merge to Victoria Junior College. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@, Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 16:39 UTC
• Merge to Victoria Junior College. --Starionwolf 18:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And don't merge (her "achievements" listed on this page are significantly over-hyped – I can't see why the Victoria Junior College page needs to note that during the tenure of its current principal they've added air-conditioning, made some largely cosmetic rennovations to the campus, and gained a certification that many other schools in Singapore had already achieved). Singopo 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per Singopo. Armon 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'll spring for a merge savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "In the future, everyone will have fifteen minutes of fame" -- WP is not that future. I actually thought it was an alternate romanization of Chiang Kai-shek. Fearwig 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meenal Jain/Temp

We already have Meenal Jain Anshuk 10:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete --Melaen 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge contents (except any copyvio) and delete.--Jusjih 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: ditto as above. --Bootblack 16:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a fork of Meenal Jain. Doesn't add any sourced information to the contents of the other article, therefore a merge is unnecessary. Ziggurat 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ToneSwep

Notability problem. Appears to be an unpublished writer. His crime series is unknown outside this article[17], the person himself doesn't do much better[18][19][20]. The article cites a "Tone's Corner" which mentions the name (I can't parse the text though - "Molten. Lava."???) Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 all schools delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argyle Academy

No evidence of notability supplied, and no reliable sources either. It appears to be an online comic. Google wasn't much help either. - Motor (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like the author, who doesn't appear to have an article, might make WP:BIO. There was an article about him in the Washington City Paper, which is available (if you want to cough up 3 bucks) here or (if you want to go blind) here. However, this journal comic seems to be a fairly new project and it wasn't mentioned in the article. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence for notability of the comic. --InShaneee 14:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Since it's about the comic and not the author, WP:WEB kicks in and it doesn't meet it. I have copied the article over to Comixpedia: Comixpedia:The Argyle Academy. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of football teams by World Cup performance

Original Research. A very nice idea, but rules are rules. – Elisson • Talk 11:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, interesting but original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 13:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• A pity to delete it just like that. Transfer to Adhocipedia. --Lambiam^Talk 14:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (WP:NOR). — Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It should be noted that the info in the page; except for the 'points system' is all avialable elsewhere on Wikipedia --Robdurbar 16:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete or userfy at least. Fascinating, but OR, sadly. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to All-time FIFA World Cup results table (or something like that). Mariano(t/c) 08:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nomination. Furthermore, I would not have used the same rules ;-)--Panairjdde 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We should rank the teams by total points (2 or 3 for a win, 1 for a draw). Those are official, unlike this. Chanheigeorge 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ... regrettably as I do find it interesting but it is against policy. -- Alias Flood 00:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Modify Just assign 3 points to a win and one to a draw, redo table, that shouldn't be original research (correct me if I'm wrong). --Emilio floris 12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still there!

After this article is deleted, if anyone still wants to view the information contained in it, they may do so at my user page. Thank you. --Mark J 19:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the update in a few weeks time! Grutness...wha? 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will do so as soon as the FIFA official rankings are made available (which may take some time). By the way, if anyone knows of any place where this information could be made freely available, without people taking offence at it, please let me know. --Mark J 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is taking offence at it, it is just that originial research is not for Wikipedia. Just think about the gigantic page we would have for the ranking if anyone would be allowed to add their own system. For your question about a place where you could place the info, User:Lambiam recommended Adhocipedia in his comment above. – Elisson • Talk 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Thanks. --Mark J 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization

Unable to verify WP:CORP or WP:WEB via a neutral source. All google hits seem to be produced by the organization itself as part of a campaign to inflate the number of google hits. Related article Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals has the same problem and is also nominated for deletion. BigE1977 01:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Just for clarification's sake, I'm not sure what you mean by "All google hits seem to be produced by the organization itself as part of a campaign to inflate the number of google hits." When I look at the results of a search in Google for the organization, I see 360,000 results for a search of the organization's name (SEMPO), the vast majority appear to be from sites that are not affiliated with SEMPO. It sounds like you are saying that the organization is responsible for many, if not most of those. But I don't think that they are. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.Bill Slawski 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:CORP per nom. Even their own press page has only 2 articles, one of which doesn't mention the article subject. Kevin 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some controversy within the wikipedia on the notability deletion policy. I created the entry for the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization and added to it once. Rather than others building upon the entry, I'm seeling threats to delete it. I am not a member of the organization, but I'm growing a little disgusted by deletion policy based upon notibility. Would you care to define the notibility policy for me in the context of this organization? Have you even bothered to research the topic, or is there a bias in your approach here? I couldn't care less about the amount of Google hits the organization receives, but I had an interest in trying to help improve the wikipedia. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks. Bill Slawski 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You've included SEMPO in this discussion for deletion, too. Is there personal bias in this action to delete? Would you delete the SEO article, too? I'm asking because I've been trying to add to that article in a positive manner, and from what I've seen here, it may just be a wasted effort.Bill Slawski 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've no idea what you're talking about. This the AfD entry for the SEMPO article, as you can see by the title above. In any case, if you want this article to stay you should point out the reason that the company is deserving of an article in an encyclopedia. WP:CORP spells out the notability stuff around corporations pretty well. As is often said: the Wikipedia does not and can not have an article on every single thing under the sun (I've been using the example of the nonexistant Consumed Crustacean's Left Foot article), hence the notability deletions. You just need to prove why the company is notable, using non-primary (unaffiliated) sources. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is due to the fact that someone added an additional organization and wikipedia entry to this one (Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals), discussing both as if they were the same organization. The discussions regarding each should probably be bifurcated - they are not related organizations.

Also, the WP:CORP notability requirements don't seem like a very good fit for non profits. You're unlikely to find a nonprofit on the Forbes or Fortune 500, nor product or service reviews for an industry trade group, and stock market indices don't exist for non stock corporations. Perhaps a better measuring stick for a nonprofit, consumer and industry educational group is whether or not the information they share is widely cited. The list of external resouces I created below is only a small listing of many of the places where SEMPO's information has been disseminated by non-affiliated organizations. Hopefully the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Business Week, Red Herring, and the others I listed are non trivial enough. This seems to fit the first requirement of the WP:CORP notability requirements Bill Slawski 06:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nominator is correct in that the subject cannot be independently verified to be notable. Kuzaar 13:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Would references to the organization in places like the Register make a difference? Just curious? Not familiar enough with the practices here enough yet to know. cheers. Bill Slawski 03:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some non-trivial resources for SEMPO (If you would like more, let me know):

• New York Times - | The Media Business: Advertising; Web Marketers Fearful of Fraud In Pay-Per-Click
• USA Today - | Click fraud's bound to continue, experts say
• Richmond Times Dispatch | Search-engine pros can click it up a notch
• Personal Computer World (UK) - | Search engine marketing revs up online advertising
• The Register | Google and Yahoo! accused of click fraud collusion
• Ecommerce Times - | Search Engine Ads Garner $5.75 Billion in 2005
• Red Herring - | Search Ads Rose 44% in 2005
• Red Herring - | Google Sued over Ranking
• Information Week - | Google API Extends Advertisers' Control
• New Scientist - | Wanted! Search engine top spots
• Revenue Magazine - | Danger: Clicking Ahead
• CNN Money - | Google: biting the hand that feeds it?
• Smart Money - | Slicing Up the Online Ad Pie
• ZDNet News - | Google settlement or not, click fraud won't go away
• Denver Business Journal - | Search engines are driving more business
• Business Week - | Click Fraud Gets Smarter
• Business Week - | War of the Roses
• New York Post - | GROWTH $PURT
• Microsoft Small Business Center - | 6 steps to help protect against click fraud
• Gourmet Retailer Magazine - | Winning on the Web: Stuff That's Cool for Niche Retailers
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Want to get to the top on Yahoo! searches? Start bidding
• Chicago Tribune | For the little guy, Internet is leveling the field

Since the group is a non profit organization, it is impossible for them to meet any of the criteria under that prong of the non notable test.

Thanks. (sorry - thought I was logged in) Bill Slawski 05:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Your sources are misleading. The first article I clicked, for example, the CNN article (Google: Biting the Hand that Feeds It?) not only failed to establish SEMPO's notability, but also consisted only of the president of SEMPO talking about a notable company. Additionally, note that WP:CORP requires the company itself to be the subject of the multiple nontrivial publications, not that the publications contain material quoted from said company. Kuzaar 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to Comment: It's not my intent to mislead, and I don't believe those resources are misleading. CNN wouldn't choose a non-notable organization as a subject matter expert in instances like that, nor would the New York Times, the New York Post, Business Week, the Register, Red Herring, and so on. The surveys that SEMPO has released over the past couple of years have been covered as newsworthy material from notable sources, on topics such as click fraud, online advertising spending, and developing trends in online use and advertising. A number of the sources I listed above include information about those.

They are a nonprofit, and a large part of what they do involves the creation and dissemination of information like that, and in providing a voice for people active in internet advertising. It's the equivalent of being a member of the Fortune 500 for an organization like them to be included in places like CNN, speaking on topics like that. I am not a member of SEMPO, and I likely won't become one. I have no bias, and if you decide to delete this article, it's more your loss than mine. Cheers.

Two thirds of the criteria for the three pronged test for notability under WP:CORP are not appropriate, and do not apply to a nonprofit organization. Perhaps a new standard should be created to judge whether or not those organizations should be considered notable or not, for purposes of inclusion in the wikipedia.

Let me also add that I bothered to try to do some research, and provide some sources that may be deemed trivial or non trivial instead of just making a statement that there were no independently verifiable sources. You may not like the resources I provided, but I'd ask you to consider them seriously instead of just dismissing them out of hand.

One sad fact about this process of pointing to printed resources that are available on the web is that those resources often have gated walls where material is hidden behind subscription based archives. So, for instance, I didn't look at the full text of the article from the New York Times, nor did I include a couple of other articles from Business Week or other resources where one would have to pay to access that information. Perhaps this comment is more appropriate as a comment on the notability requirements at WP:CORP, but it's still a valid criticism here, too.Bill Slawski 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As indicated by my comment below, I am "on the fence." Are there any independent articles which have SEMPO as its subject instead of "on background"? You mention the New York Times and the Business Week, but if there such an article in those (or Washington Post, etc.), the name of the organization would appear in the summary. Find one or more of these and it's very likely that I wouldn't be the only one convinced that the article should stay. B.Wind 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep:I did an extensive post for SEMPO (Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization) over 2 months ago - which was subsequently removed. It was about the history and impact the organization has made in the timely world of search advertising (ie Google and Yahoo and MSN PPC). This non-profit organization has helped make marketers understand that the world of search engine marketing a visible and viable method of advertising. The term SEMPO has entered into the lexicon for 'what Google sells'. It is a classic non-profit industry or trade (if you will) association that deserves an entry into Wikipedia. The research conducted by the organization alone is reason for entry.

More Marketers Concerned About Click Fraud

Search Engine Ads Garner 5.7 Billion in 2005

US Search Engine Marketers Spent $5.75 Billion in 2005, Says SEMPO

It is a worldwide presence - SEMPO Japanese Research Report

Even if the entry is just a pointer to the industry it represents, that would be valuable. The original extensive entry was deleted and now lost in the 'deletion land' thus depriving wikipedia of this important knowledge. Sad that we have come to this.

Other industry organizations have a presence in Wikipedia and this should be no exception: [Direct marketing association], [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers], etc.

• Comment. I'm not sure enough on this subject to vote a "keep", but the fact that SEMPO's studies are being picked up by various independent news websites (and IIRC one made it through Slashdot and the like) does seem to indicate some notability under WP:CORP. They weren't merely press releases either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think WP:CORP was written with non-profits in mind, but in any case the coverage they get in leading news outlets is enough to convince me of notability. If that is not enough, isn't the SEMPO's being sponsored by no less than MSN, Yahoo!, Verizon and Google a sure sign that this is not grandstanding? --Lambiam^Talk 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Bwithh 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral while the article doesn't truly indicate anything but its sponsors (and notable sponsors do not necessarily mean that the organization is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia), I am not sure one way or another if this nonprofit organization is supposed to have an article here. What makes the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, NAACP, JSTOR, FIDOF, Enough Is Enough, or Boys and Girls Town separate enough from the other nonprofits to merit articles? I don't know; thus the neutral vote. B.Wind 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:CORP criteria for companies/corporations 1, among things. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lambiam and Consumed Crustacean. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. A great big thank you to all the Cholmelians who made Highgate Deletion Day 2006 such a rambunctious success! Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highgate School Muck Up Day 2006

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

Non-notable event, unverifiable. -- Tangotango 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Per nom Arbiteroftruth 10:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn event. - Longhair 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not DeleteHow can you delete this?! It's an historic event, and well known by many in the London fraternity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.106 (talk • contribs)
• Delete an unofficial event at a single school could never be notable. Might actually be a subtle form of attack page by implicating those named at the end of the article in being involved with vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost BJAODN? DarthVader 13:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I do feel bad for the kids if the event is true. --Starionwolf 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable school event. It might be worthwhile on having an article on Muck Up Days as they are a common custom at least in Australia. We had one at our school for the final day before the NSW High School Certificate at Mulwaree High School. Capitalistroadster 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd point you to the article, but I don't want to violate WP:BEANS. --Rory096 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. DJ Clayworth 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I like DarthVader's suggestion of BJAODN. Molerat 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I feel, along with many that this is a valuable page, not only is it informative, it had no vandalism involved within it(as all events were tidied up that same day), and the school were fine with everything that happened, and even sponsored many of the events that took place. This should remain on Wikipedia, as it is educational for other schools, and in order to inform those who do not know about or what a //Muck-up Day// is. Please do not delete this as it represents a memorable and historic year for Highgate School and it's history.The event is clearly true, and can be further proven by the photographs. why is this a non-notable event or an article that falls under "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense"? Having read both articles for both notability and BJAODN, it clearly doesn't fall into either category! within our school, and most other public schools in the country, a muck up day is common for every final year on the last day. The day consisted of fun, no vandalism and pure enjoyment between teachers and students. Within the discussion section, people are arguing for their desire for the article to NOT be deleted.jackp59
• Do not delete -- Details about this event should be published for others to read about. There is very limited information available about Muck-up days on Wikipedia, on the internet or even published anywhere. Could I request that User:Starionwolf classifies his comment that "I do feel bad for the kids if the event is true". Also that User:Starblind classifies his comment that it is a 'subtle form of attack page', and where he thinks any vandalism took place? -- Payneo 01:16, 30 May 2006 (GMT)
• Delete per above Hobbeslover 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable event (before someone comments that I only have a few edits, please see my talk page as this is a new account, thanks) --Tim1988 09:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete -- How can you even think about deleting this?! This is a notable event for thousands in the North London area! Many people want to hear about this event and other muck-up days in general - and at the moment, there is a serious manque (as the French would say) of informative articles. This is a very important event for many people, and the fact that some people are considering this for deletion offends and frankly disgusts me. -- Dave 12:02, 30 May 2006 (GMT)
• Delete. Non-notable event. Markb 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deleteDon't know why this would be deleted, its all factual and will be read by thousands of people.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.80.86 (talk • contribs). 10:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deleteIt was an important day for all who were involved and deserves to be remembered in history. It really was special... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack.kennedy (talk • contribs). 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deletePersonally I feel that the contribution is worthwhile, and will be widely admired, read and is a brilliant article describing a truely memorable occasion, please fo not delete this article, User: Jackp59 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackp59 (talk • contribs). 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deleteThis item tells much about the changing nature of the British Public School (oddly in the United Kingdom Public Schools are Private Schools for historical Reasons.) We have all been left with an impression of the dark and dingy days of the Public School in the days of "Tom Brown's Schooldays." Here we see a lively and vibrant community. Don't delete such an informative piece. ivanalias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs). 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deleteFollowing the statement "The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.", changes have been made to this item in order to improve the introduction. Does it require more alterations and aditional comments??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs). 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deleteA memorable day that has been celebrated throughout London's school community, an example of this supposedly unofficial event practiced throughout the UK should not go unnoticed on an online encyclopaedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antiej (talk • contribs). 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deleteThis is a truely worthwhile page and links nicely to Muck-up day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackp59 (talk • contribs). 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deleteAs another comment states, all that is written in this article is factual account of the day's true events. None of the material is crude or explicit, merely a record of a day that means so much to so may people. Deleting such a page would therefore prove to be unnecessary and unfair on all those who wish to reminice about such an enjoyable occasion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.169.188 (talk • contribs). 22:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not deleteSurely the number of comments on this page demonstrates the 'importance of the subject matter'. It was not only an important day in the history of one of the oldest educational institutions in Britain, in the history of the tradition of muck-up day, but also hugely important to all those who witnessed the day and were involved in it.b
• Do not delete -- I am a keen wikipedian and one who was a witness of the event. In my, humble, opinion, it has a right to be on wikipedia as it was the most successful muck up day for a long time and the culmination of 13 years of highgate for many students. However, perhaps what makes it stand out most is that it marked the first completion of a co-educational 6th form- something which defied hundreds of years of highgate's history and made this day so monumental. This is certainly a notable event. Seb. SebM 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete-- An important memory for all those involved. The actions that took place on the day were in no way insulting or demeaning to any party and the spirit of the day was enacted in a manner which was light-hearted and regarded well by both teachers and students alike. Given the significant amount of time and effort put into the events of the day, i do not see why the event should not be recorded on this website. It offends no one and those wishing for it to be deleted need to understand that the memory of the day is important for the students, for the teachers, and for the future Highgate School pupils. This article is not promoting or advertising an act of vandalism, but an act of celebration and unity amongst the pupils. 86.142.25.244 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Dean M
• Do not delete -- I cannot see any good and justifiable reason for deleting this page - it is far better constructed and referenced than many other so-called "legitimate" events pages on wikipedia. The event was very real, and marked an important milestone of the first cohort of girls to graduate from highgate. It was also a very special day for all involved. This is certainly a most notable event!! Luc
• Do not delete -- Definitely a notable event, and one which a site like wikipedia should record the history of. Would be a shame for something as enjoyable and fun as this to be lost in the sands of time. Worthy of record. SidVonDagger87.80.30.125 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not verifiable, and too POV. Great material for a personal page; inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Best of luck to the authors in moving it elsewhere. --William Pietri 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Muck up. Delete. CalTech Ditch Day is much more verifiable and notable, and probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Interesting to note that all these 'keen wikipedians', with their strong views on what should, or should not be included, don't know that the convention is to argue for keep, NOT do not delete. Markb 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oddly, a lot of anons and whatnot who come to WP for AfDs say "do not delete." I wonder why. --Rory096 07:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke it to the moon. High schools are barely notable, their pranks certainly are not. --Rory096 07:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm awestruck of the effort you put in to the whole thing, and the potential deletion of the article doesn't negate that. You have plenty of memories already of the event, however. Try not to stress too much about it. --0zymandias 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete IT WAS JUST A BIT OF FUN! LET US CHOMELIANS HAVE A WAY TO REMEMBER OUR LAST EVER DAY OF SCHOOL! Hugo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.102.1 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I see no reason as to why this article is up for deletion. Wikipedia, in essence, is exactly what its slogan says it is i.e. "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Encyclopedia's are a source of information and tend to be useful resources. However, Wikipedia, as highlighted by Payneo, has limited information on Muck-up days in general and I see absolutely no reason why this article cannot be used as a prime example of what muck-up days should be about: having fun, having a laugh and making it one of the most memorable days of the school calender. This particular muck-up day is a milestone in Highgate School's history, as it is the first time that girls have participated in the tradition and this surely makes it a notable event, as not only does it mark the start of the evolution within Highgate but also shows how far Highgate has come not only as a school but as a community. I beg to differ and would like to ask User:Starblind where and in what form the "vandalism" actually took place? Also, User:Starblind goes on to say that Muck-up day is an "unofficial event at a single school". However, this statement is false as A) it is a traditional event at Independant Schools in the UK and so B) occurs at schools nationwide and internationally as User:Capitalistroadster points out that they had on at Mulwaree High School in Australia. I hope that all these factors are taken into consideration and are acknowledged when deciding the outcome of this article. Alem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.93.98 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete The muck up day was purely a day of enjoyment between friends and teachers, and anybody saying that this should be deleted is appaling because it hasd nothing to do with them and the names for-mentioned have done nothing that would incriminate themselves.DON'T DELETE!!bassyboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.28.95 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Entirely accrurate site. Provides Factual list of Events, Menus and People. No names that have been mentioned have done so without consent. Photos prove accuracy of comments, and the fact that the day happened. Link to general muck up day information provided. Notable event for general population of North London, notable event for all public school pupils in England,notbale event for the OC Society, link provided. Inoffensive, Accurate and Notable. Surely this meets all criteria. Also please notice that the people creating the page have acted entirely honourabley in producing it, and also made every effort to meet criteria, notable adding footnotes on your request, adding sources, adding tiotles and clarity and now offering 3 paragraphs on the importance of the event. Thegreatbriton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatbriton (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm afraid it's not a site, it's an article in an encylopedia. It seems like it belongs on its own website, many companies offer free hosting for this kind of stuff. I can see you made an effort, but unfortunately the event does not merit an article in an encyclopedia. Molerat 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, Wikia might even host an entire wiki just for your school, if you want. --Rory096 16:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above "Do not delete" votes and per nom. feydey 16:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is historical man. these bois r top top jokerz. this is crapypedia if they don't let this article stay up. dis is d bombest article on d ole of wiki(d)pedia. it only wikidpedia if u let dis article stay up boi- or else it's crappypedia n i wont eva chat to u again. Seriously i wil terminate my relationship wit previously-widi(d)pedia. Trust boi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.32.115.251 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC).
• Right. Must not have been too much of a relationship, since this is your first edit. But you are always welcome here. Anyway, delete as a totally non-notable event at one school. Grandmasterka 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so some ppl think this is a joke, however, i've said on numerous occasions that this article shouldn't be deleted, and fair enough you may think it is a non notable event, how can I prove that it was? Some people are taking the piss, but in all seriousness, how can we keep this article on wikipedia? jackp59 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs).

• It doesn't belong here. However, if you don't want to lose all your hard work (and a lot of effort has been put into the article), I recommend you save the article on your hard drive (to keep a copy after deletion) and resurrect it on an external website. Rory096 suggested Wikia hosting an entire wiki just for your school. I think that's a good idea. Molerat 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not DeleteWhile this article may seem to be of limited importance I would argue that this is not the case. From reading what is frankly a very well written and witty account I have a number of observations. Firstly with over 100 people involved in the proceedings it seems that this page is not without a solid base of interested viewers. Secondly, coming from England I am well aware of the tradition of muck-up days and it is in this light that I believe this page is of great use. Many pupils take the opportunity of leaving school to cause violence to the local community, run riot and generally create unberable havoc. However the ideas used by the Highgate pupils were neither destructive nor troublesome to locals or staff. Therefore if in future years pupils searched wikipedia for inspiration for their own muck-up days then Highgate school seems like an exemplary example to follow. A final point I would add is the standard of written English in the article would no doubt also act as something which more unruly pupils (who would have already been disuaded from dangerous actions) could learn something from. Well written and commendable, i hope this is not deleted.86.138.120.15 14:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The concept of a muck up day is a historic and traditional one that has very few articles written on it. This article provides an excellent account of a muck up day that is valuable for all. The event can be verified and the article is informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.7.3.52 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can it be verified with evidence from a reputable publisher? In any case, the page is original research. Molerat 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, schoolboy nonsense, WP:NFT in extremis. Sandstein 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous comment. This event happens at schools worldwide annualy. This event is not made up in one day, its got centuries of history behind it, as is explained on the site Thegreatbriton 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The greatbriton

• This is not original research, it adds detail to something that is already present on Wikipedia.Payneo 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and have fun closing this monster. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per all above delete votes. Zaxem 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Zaxem, I would like to remind you that this is NOT a vote.Payneo 09:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Votes" was a bad choice of words. What I meant to say was that I agree with all the comments made above in support of deletion. Wikipedia cannot have articles on every annual "muck-up day" in every school around the world – and nothing in this article suggest that this muck-up day was more significant than the many thousands of others. Zaxem 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This article provides a prime example of a successful muck up day. Other than this article Wikipedia has less than 100 words about muck up days - events that are part of a tradition for many secondary schools in the UK and across the world (in particular Australia). There is very little published information anywhere for those wanting to find out more about muck up days; this supplys those interested with a great illustration of one. Payneo 15:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • This would be a good argument for expanding the Muck-up day article on Wikipedia to include more general information about the type of things that commonly happen at muck-up days around the world. But it's not a reasonable argument to justify why Wikipedia should have an article about one specific muck-up day at one individual school whose muck-up days are not any more significant than those at any other school around the world which has them. Zaxem 10:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The event is unverifiable by the standards of Wikipedia (it cannot be verified by a reputable publisher), and it is not notable (I doubt the event concerns thousands of people, and anyway, many other events concerning thousands of people do not have articles). Molerat 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• "Cannot be verified"??? 500 pictures will not have been faked 'Molerat'...your argument seems to revolve around the fact that other, more significant events do not have wikis - this is a non sequitur. The article itself also points out that it is of interest to both the many thousands of Old Cholmelians and much of the North London community. It is time to remove the chip from your shoulder and get rid of your prejudices against private schools and their 'traditions'. It is only by working from the bottom-up that Wikipedia serves its purpose. This is my vision of the Wikipedia of the future.Keep129.67.43.240 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cultural Revolution (webcomic)

An Alexa ranking of almost 5 million [21] and the first two hits on Google are this article [22] with no other relevant hits until the second search page and then nothing after that. The one site other than the homepage that it is featured on, The 7th level, was recently deleted for being non notable. IrishGuy 12:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've copied this article over to Comixpedia. You can find it here. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks, Abe. And, it took you long enough, IrishGuy. ;) - Al —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.160.45 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nomination. --Starionwolf 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — TheKMan^talk 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Cecil

I don't think an obscure Shabutie song that few people have heard of really warrants a page of it's own page. Only the most die hard Coheed and Cambria fans would even care about the song. Possibly falls under vanity too. Also seems to be full of unreferened facts/rumours. Prehaps some of the info could be merged to Plan to Take Over the World? Rehevkor 13:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Plan to take over the world article however exclude the lyrics. - Erebus555
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 08:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Massacres

I have neither particular historical knowledge of, nor interest in, the Armenian-Turk, Greco-Turk, Bulgarian-Turk etc. conflicts, and the associated historical grievances. This article, though, is a mess of propagandistic and of course blatantly POV invective regarding alleged massacres in the course of these conflicts. The sources cited are either not online or clearly partisan, and are at any rate not specific to the individual allegations. I realise AfD is not a content dispute forum, but I think that this sort of text cannot be usefully NPOVed (or merged), and that the article itself is a POV fork of the existing articles on the history of these conflicts. An article on "Turkish Massacres" (or rather, "Massacres of Turks", which is what is meant) during many very different conflicts has no systematic value to the encyclopedian, only to the propagandist. (Contested PROD, of course.) Sandstein 13:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the more notable cases that can be properly sourced into Genocides in history while assuring NPOV treatment (which I think is quite possible if you have access to the sources, which I do not). --Lambiam^Talk 14:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I believe the article is a bit too one sided and serves to counter the claims made in the Armenian Genocide article. There's information that reads that Armenians attempted to assassinate the leader of Turkey in 1901, Sultan Abdul-Hamid. However, it doesn't include as to why they did it (see Hamidian massacres) and leaving that information out is like writing an article on Germany and stating that in July 1944, some Germans decided to arbitrarily assassinate Adolf Hitler -- as if for no apparent reason! This article can be tidied up by using better references but in its current state, I motion for it to be removed.--MarshallBagramyan 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bombing of Dresden in World War II is an uber Holocaust compared to any resistance against Turkish/Kurdish forces done by either Greeks or Armenians during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This is most definetly a pov fork. I suppose an article about the resistance should exist but not in this ridiculous state and with this absurd title.--Eupator 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, the article is just a list of grievances without historical context or explanation. --Benorim 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this article has presented a set of largely isolated incidents as a series of atrocities committed against the Turks. While they did happen, this article is inherently POV as it only presents one side of things. I think an article like this is redundant, but if one should exist, it should list all atrocities committed in the area - by Turks and non-Turks alike. --Telex 21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, especially blatant unsourced statement for Bulgarians killing (rather than more likely displacing) 2 million Turks, even greater conspiracy than other known genocides?  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. And a comment: perhaps the editors of this article tried hard to find massacres committed by the Greeks, that's why they listed even a battle (Dervenakia) there!!! The words 'massacre' and 'genocide' have definitions that cannot be compatible with this article... --Hectorian 01:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hakob 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. I have to admit it provided entertaining reading. These guys try to spin the unspinnable. We all know the massacres happened the other way! --   Avg    09:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There isn't a shred of truth to that article.--Moosh88 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (I was the PRODer). Not fitting into structure of articles about Turkish history as a start. Pavel Vozenilek 02:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typical Plot Sequence of House (TV Series)

I was going to speedy this as OR, but then I noticed that the page creator has previously been involved in a dispute on the main House article about this exact section: namely, whether or not it counts as OR. After all, he says on the talk page, it's observable fact - you can get this information just by watching episodes of the show.

But it really doesn't feel right. What say you, o brethren? And as importantly, what are your reasons? DS 13:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. As an avid fan of this superb show (and I spend less than 3 hours a week watching television....) I would have to say that it appears to be true but the article's main problem is that it lacks citation; to be "typical", 50% or more of the shows would have to follow this pattern exactly and the article would have to show this. That could make it very, very long indeed. I don't know either actually - I agree that it feels unencyclopedic but I find it hard to grudge. Meh, a weak keep with citation required but I'll get back to you. Interesting nomination. Ac@osr 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge -- 9cds^(talk) 14:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading about the original research/no sources, I think I'll change my vote to delete. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and do not merge This is absolutely Original Research if the only reference given is "its obvious if you watch the show". Also, it is Non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a fan forum Bwithh 14:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.--StevenL 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - This should be dealt with in the main article. ScottW 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious stuff that it is okay to get from watching a TV show would be things like a character's name, appearance and maybe background. Analyzing episodes and coming up with a formula for the plots is clearly original research. If it is fairly accurate, that just makes it good original research. -- Kjkolb 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - amusing, but definitely original research, and POV in that it insinuates that the program (which I have never seen) is predictably written. —phh (^t/_c) 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no Merge per WP:NOR. Danny Lilithborne 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge With the main article about the series. Bryce 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. If the creator cited third party sources as references, that would be a different story. 23skidoo 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge This is information pertinent to the series and reflects valid criticism and thematic structure. NeoThe1 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh -- Hirudo 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like the show but come on, this is fancruft at its finest. The house page branches out into too many silly articles as it is. Policy based reasons include: POV, original research. --TrollHistorian 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; but if it actually cited a list of episodes which followed this "Typical Plot Sequence" (and the Unnecessary Titular Capitalisation were removed) to prove that it is indeed typical, I'd vote "keep". --Jacj 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Criticism of House (TV Series); This article is very accurate - and that is obervable if you watch it. I find it difficult to call it 'Original Research' when all that has been done is highlight specific details of the show. It is thus difficult to find sources for (hence I sway) - it could be prefaced with some caveat about being subjective (some viewers believe...) as long as reference to some episondes that follow this trend are added, I see no reason to delete it...
• Delete and place a brief summary of the article in House (TV Series). Cigarette 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and do not merge This is clearly Original Research. It's content created by an editor to illustrate their point and has no place in an encyclopdia. If you could find a reference where David Shore explains the formula for writing House, that would be acceptable. This isn't even close. Elwood00 ^{T | C} 01:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and do not merge The entire article is original research and the authors point of view. It should be deleted and not merged with the House article. dposse 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- no real point in merging: it's an unlikely search term. The obviously OR-ness of this article aside, I'm torn over the question of whether the original article could contain somewhat of information about the typical plot. I'm not that familiar with House but it seems like, for example, elemements that are common to each episode can be notable and verifiable. For example, each Simpson's episode starting with Bart drawing on the chalk board. But that doesn't appear to be the level of magnitude that we are dealing with here. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JUGSU

delete non notable internet phenomenon, prod tag removed Melaen 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This page was blanked by creator [23], and IMO can be classed as a creator's request to delete. Computerjoe's talk 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above--Jusjih 15:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom - Erebus555
• Delete per nom. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - blanked by author, restored by computerjoe with popups. B.Wind 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per others. Grandmasterka 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reception (astrology)

Frankly, this article seems nonsensical to me. However, I think that there may be wikipedians who want this kept (at least one, as it was written, with some effort expended), so rather than speedy nom, I ask you, my fellow wikipedians, to accept (or otherwise) this article. My suggestion - Delete. With thanks, Colonel Tom 15:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you found the article I wrote on reception to be nonsense, except that (reading it over) it is rather technical, and I imagine it might seem obscure. If the problem is that it's written in a way that someone with little background in astrology might understand, fair enough. I'll try to make it more accessible. But it's not as if it's some wiggy idea that I dreamt up. The concept has been around for two millennia, and it's always been called "reception." I'm assuming there is no bias against astrology involved in flagging it. NaySay 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's totally unreferenced at present. If convincing citations showing this is a well-known concept within the field can be added that would be an argument for keeping the article Dlyons493 Talk 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All astrological articles seem nonsensical to me, but it is not patent nonsense. The concept appears to be in use by astrologers.[24][25] --Lambiam^Talk 17:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lambiam. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would prefer to merge this somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. --Metropolitan90 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Astrology. B.Wind 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunately inappropriate to merge this with strology because that article is far too long as it is and has need to reference many smaller articles for explanation of more detailed points. The article on Mutual reception would seem more appropriate, but unfortunately mutual reception is a category of reception. However, the term is much more commonly used in twenty-first century astrology than "reception." What I will do is to add refs to the article if that seems feasible and make it more accessible. NaySay 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per NaySay and Lambiam. - CNichols 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if references can be provided; delete otherwise. I see no other problems with the article, other than the offchance that somebody just pulled this out of their ass. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acno's Energizer

This is a how-to guid to a specific game, Including level codes. This is not what wikipedia is meant to be Felixr 15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• delete WP is not a game guide J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete Not notable. It looks like an advertisment too.
• Delete - seems to be a somewhat fun boulderdash clone, but nn. Site has a 1M+ alexa ranking too. -- Hirudo 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etternorsk

non-notable, very few hits in Google; WP:CORP Ioannes Pragensis 15:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn record label. Punkmorten 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing here, except an external link. Shenme 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Shenme. B.Wind 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rent Is Too Damn High Party

• Strong Delete non notable political entity. --Strothra 15:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• This Article Has Existed For Too Long Delete But it's almost a BJAODN candidate. -- Kicking222 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete All traces of these people are fading from the internet, there is not demonstratable notability. HighInBC 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above reasons. --Starionwolf 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Kicking222, don't you mean "this article has existed Too Damn long." --Dakart 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is totally non-notable. Grandmasterka 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 19:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Stubblefield

I do not believe that this officer passes our criteria as listed at WP:BIO. We recently deleted an article on one of his fellow officers, who holds the same rank and has a very similar biography, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell F. Roark, III. Rje 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - does a fine job, I'm sure, but lacks cited notability. Tony Fox 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and per Tony Fox Bejnar 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tony Fox. Being a highway patrol officer is an honorable position but not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per withdrawal of nomination -- Samir धर्म 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Levin

Delete non notable film maker. no notability established in article. vanity, WP:VAIN, and advertisement. Fails to meet WP:BIO for notability guidelines. Strothra 15:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Strothra (withdrawing nom per cite additions and award. meets a minimum standard --Strothra 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Strothra. --Starionwolf 19:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sundance winner? Cannes Film Festival's Golden Camera award winner too? Obviously notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayjg. Pecher ^Talk 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proof of this individual as a sundance winner was not established in the article. Further, this does not make him "obviously" notable. --Strothra 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cited now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Strothra 21:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Jayjg. —Viriditas | Talk 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I find him notable, but I am disappointed at the lack of biographic data about him. Bejnar 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Once again this man is obviously notable enough for an article. I really do not understand what criteria you are basing your claim on, but it is clearly nothing normal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough, altough the article is underdeveloped and his movie "SLAM" should have a Wikipedia page if it is notable in and of itself. --Ben Houston 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a winner at Cannes is notable enough. Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per recent comments. MikeWazowski 01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Director with extensive IMDB page [26]. Should be expanded, not deleted. There is nothing to debate here. Nom should withdraw this pronto. -- JJay 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep surely notable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. There's probably a good article waiting to be written on this historian, but it won't come out of this morass. Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ESTORNES ZUBIZARRETA, Idoia (historian)

looks like nonsense, but probably isn't Will (^E_@) T 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete author doesn't seem to know the english language very well. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and recommend cleanup. She is a preeminent historian of the modern Basque region (Euskadi), and undoubtably not as well known to English speaking audiances as she should be. See, for example, the review of her 1990 book at Center for Basque Studies, Univ. of Nevada, Reno Bejnar 23:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I accede Delete per Lukas Bejnar 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Trouble is that large parts of the article seem to be verbatim copies from just that review. Plus, the book it talks about is just a doctoral dissertation - even if it was a very good one and seminal within her narrow field of specialisation, I guess that alone would hardly make her a notable academic for our purposes here. I vote for delete in the present form, not least because of the apparent copyvio, but without prejudice - if someone can produce a better article with some more data on her career and importance for her field, that'll be fine. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a copyvio and almost unsalvageably incoherent anyway. Grandmasterka 19:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'll spot you the copyvio, but there doesn't seem to be a notability problem. Could be a very herculean AfD save for *someone*. Wasn't there a time where we just removed the copyrighted text and didn't delete the article? I'd be willing to give the creator some time to clean this up. You guys seem to have the tagging of it under control. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as the article provided little context. Royboycrashfan 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Cazana

Delete non notable individual. notability not established in article, cleanup tag has been in place since October 2005 but no one seems to even want to edit this article. Strothra 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete one sentence article, but not because of nn. He was a wrestler for the now-defunct Smokey Mountain Wrestling organization who deserves a complete article, not this unworkable, out-of-context... (censored). B.Wind 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. {{Nocontext}} would apply here. Grandmasterka 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Samir धर्म 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi hunter

Deletenon notable group. No such group actually exists, or at least as an organized entity and thus is fictional. doesn't seem to be any real organization just a term coined by the author to refer to individuals who have a similar cause. Violates WP:NOR, borederline violation of WP:NEO as it refers to the concept as if it were actually an established group. Lacks verifiable sources.Strothra 16:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :I updated the article per the discussion below to make it more a description of the term. No matter what changes are made, however, still makes the article no more than a dicdef which should not be included in Wikipedia. Such articles belong in Wiktionary. Thus, my Delete vote stands. --Strothra 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Updating this nom again as per discussion below and with another user. Article should be Deleted and moved to Wiktionary but a new list should be formed for Nazi hunters. --Strothra 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unless any reference can be found which backs any of the claims. --soUmyaSch 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete maybe Wiktionary, but not here. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The term "Nazi hunter" is certainly well established, and not just coined by the author of the article. Searching "nazi hunter" at amazon will yield dozens of books around this title, even a "nazi hunter series".

Still, a category might be more appropriate than an article. --Aleph4 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is still a coined term which does not generally appear in the dictionary. See WP:NEO and WP:NOR. --Strothra 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NEO ("neologisms") certainly does not apply. The term has been around for decades. Amazon.com and the Library of Congress both list a 1968 book "The Nazi hunter" by Bynum Shaw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aleph4 (talk • contribs).

The term may exist as a grouping of individuals, yes. Nazi hunters however are not an established/institutionalized entity. They are, rather, a concept. This usage of Nazi hunters aims to portray them as if in an established organizational entity which is borderline NEO because it is not a common use of the term. --Strothra 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Many ghits and a number of people tagged with this label for their efforts in this regard. I believe the topic is quite worthy of its own page. — RJH (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Google hits should not establish notability. Verifiable sources and references help to establish notability. Notability should be established in the article itself. You seem to be promoting the creation of this topic as a category rather than keeping the article. --Strothra 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A very well known term that readers might very easily search for. Contrary to the claims made the article does not say that they were a single group. Nathcer 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very common term for a well-defined and significant activity. A search for "nazi hunter simon wiesenthal" in quotes yields more than 30,000 hits. The article explains the subject very well and does not in any way suggest that Nazi hunters are an organized group. —phh (^t/_c) 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per phh, Nathcer, and RJH. Article has potential for expansion. DVD+ R/W 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per phh, Nathcer, RJH. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Pecher ^Talk 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. They may not have had numbers but hardly an insignificant group in brining Nazi's to justice. Bryce 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They aren't a group, they're a concept. --Strothra 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. —Viriditas | Talk 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Are you kidding me? How is "Nazi Hunter" not notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a definition of a term. According to Wikipedia's customs it belongs in the Wikitionary and not as an article. If you wish to make a list of Nazi hunters then that deserves its own list.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Strothra (talk • contribs).

It wasn't "a definition of a term" until you made it so, in your edit of 16:20, 28 May 2006, a few hours before you nominated it for deletion claiming it was "just a term". I have now changed it back. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You changed the article, yes, but it's still a term. How are arguing that it's not? That's rediculous. I already proved that there is no such organization as "Nazi Hunters." It is not an established institutional entity and thus it a conceptual grouping of people. Nazi hunter is the term ascribed to these individuals who belong in this conceptual category which is precisely why this article should be a category and not an article. --Strothra 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a term, and it's a conceptual category, like cardiac arrhythmia or man or Jew. And like those subjects, it's not an organization, and still it needs an article. Keep. - Nunh-huh 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Clearly a subject of major importance for any reference work. -- JJay 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Phh.--Shlomke 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, they are a group, a concept and a "term," and their efforts (in the aggregate, not just as individuals) belong in a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. 6SJ7 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above. --Ben Houston 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, merits expansion Elizmr 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. - CNichols 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an obviously notable concept, I'm suprised the article isn't much longer. Grandmasterka 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ezeu 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero Machine

Non-notable page almost devoid of content for an internet game. R.E. Freak 06:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article is a sad little thing, but as far as flash toys go, this is one of the better known. A Google search returns 62,700 hits for me, and paging through the listings, most of them seem to be about the game itself. I noticed its home page has a poor Alexa rating, but that might because it's been copied all over the place, such as UGO [27]. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 10:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - two sentences do not an encyclopedic article make. If Hero Machine is worthy of an article, it should be an article or at least a stub. B.Wind 13:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; at least in the current state. If it is rewritten with more information, then I'd vote keep. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - do not expand or merge Non-notable Bwithh 16:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems some of the above do not understand procedures. If an article needs to be expanded or rewritten or cleaned up, there are places to list it for that purpose. Deletion is not the correct response. Articles should be deleted if we should not have an article on this topic, not if you just don't like the current version of it. McKay 06:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am relisting this article in order to ascertain a consensus. Rje 16:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity World Cup Soccer Six

None-notable celebrity football tournament; no television coverage such as Soccer Aid and no real suggestion of relevance other than 'there were some celebrities there'. Not an enyclopedic topic. Robdurbar 16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

keep Notable enough for wikipedia... 131.111.203.154 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable. And I'm confused by 131's vote/comment The JPS^{talk to me} 09:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ezeu 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissident Voice

Delete non notable news letter. no claim to notability. vanity and advertisement. Strothra 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Google search for +Dissident +Voice gives this site as #1. Note that it is used without citation. That speaks a lot about notability. Reading the article, i wonder if nominator has done the same when reading "no claim to notability"--Striver 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Did Chomsky, Fisk, etc... explicitly make these pieces for this news letter or are they just copied on from other sources? Because if the latter is true then there really is no claim to notability.--Jersey Devil 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. I found no proof that it was directly for this source and it doesn't sound like their style. Usually if Chomsky publishes something it's a book but if it's an article it's in a publication with a household name or academic journal.--Strothra 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Site has an Alexa ranking in the top 100k (88,432). 2.1 million Google results for +Dissident +Voice. That's notable enough for me. Search4Lancer 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It should be brought to the attention of all participating in this debate that all of the following articles have also be proposed for deletion at this time: Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, Prisonplanet.com and What Really Happened. __meco 09:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, website promocruft, not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice article on this radical publication. Name contributors make this a keeper. --JJay 01:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --The Brain 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Engel

Delete non notable author/journalist. notability not established in article. Does not meet Wiki guidelines. Vanity article fails to meet WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. Strothra 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The average journalist no more merits an article than the average lawyer. Nathcer 18:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 08:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, bordering on keep. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lila Rajiva

Delete non notable (WP:NN) prof and author. fails to meet WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO. Vanity article - notability for authorship also not established in article. Strothra 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: not conforming to WP:BIO right now. --Bootblack 16:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Weak delete. The book listed in the article is at at amazon.com here, and appears to be of general interest, fulfilling the first criteria in examples listed on the WP:PROFTEST. She gets two hits through google scholar [28] and returns 91 Unique google hits, which may seem like nothing, but is not bad for an academic.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment That does not qualify for WP:PROFTEST at all. The criteria are:

• The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.
• The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
• The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
• The person has published a well-known academic work.
• The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
• The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
• The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
• The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

None of those things are proven in the article. Further, the notability for authors requires four published books. --Strothra 17:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How exactly does listing [all of] the above respond to another blackletter listing on WP:PROFTEST that "An academic who has published a book of general interest, a widely-used textbook, or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is notable as an author, regardless of their academic achievements (emphasis supplied). The problem, of course, is how to define "general interest." That appears to speak to subject matter, i.e., not a textbook or treatment of arcane matters, but listing all the criteria in the first section there, and not treating the one I am obviously citing, is not responsive. I am always willing to consider new information. In this case I am changing my vote, but for a different reason, having checked other sources I see that the above section I have cited is poorly drafted (and needs to be reformed). In the main precedents section it is stated that: "Published authors are notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." That criteria she appears to fail and I agree with to an extent, though I do think the criteria for academics is out of balance with the too liberal standards which allow the keeping of all manner of cruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, general interest is a subjective term thus I do not discuss notability based on that criteria but a work certainly isn't general interest simply because it's on Amazon.com.--Strothra 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note the change I have made to the subject example section at Wikipedia:Notability (academics).--Fuhghettaboutit 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 2 hits on google scholar and 91 google hits is a very poor score for notability for an academic. An academic's main function is to publish and engage in discussions, and the internet typically plays a major part in this, so one should expect a higher google count for a notable academic. Also fails PROFTEST as per Strothra Bwithh 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BIO#People_still_alive:

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

Lets see... being in CounterPunch.org, Dissident Voice, doublestandards.org, and MRZine, including writing a book fullfills both "mutliple" and "independent" in my view.--Striver 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Lila Rajiva for advice on how to expand the article.--Striver 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also fails proftest and notability is subjective which this individual does not seem to meet. --Strothra 23:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

even if she did fail proftest, she is notable for being on multiple independent magazines. That is more than enough. --Striver 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's subjective. Let's see how the discussion unfolds because we're clearly not going to agree on that. --Strothra 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails proftest miserably. I'm sorry, but teaching "at" a university without any indication of tenure-track is a pretty shoddy level of "academic". Grad students teach at universities and are published regularly....however, we do not consider them to be professors. The "General interest" criteria is for someone like Brian Greene, who has popularized a subject by being prominent to the media and having a best-selling book (hence having an impact on the "general public" (despite a lack of academic notability), not simply any teacher who's written a general-interest book. --Mmx1 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep author. Article was an overwhelming keep in previous AfD just a few months back (nom should have mentioned that). -- JJay 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the rule which says that I should mention that. Besides, anyone can see that the article is being nominated for a second time. Please WP:AGF--Strothra 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a rule, but it is standard practice- and no one on this page can see that this article has been renominated. I'm sure you will agree that there is little utility in endlessly debating the same articles. -- JJay 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not debating it. I am willing to discuss the AfD because, afterall, this is a discussion. But all users who come to this page see that it has been renominated because they see the large article title at the top which reads: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva (2nd nomination)" The 2nd nomination part is clearly visable to all users who come to this AfD discussion. It is also clearly visable in the AfD tag on the main page of the article which tells the users it is a 2nd nomination. All users should read the article before they discuss it in the AfD discussion. There's absolutely no point in me stating that it's a second nomination. It would be simply redundant and silly. --Strothra 02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I guess you should continue not to link to earlier AfD discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva. Nor should you attempt any explanation for why it was massively kept on AfD not so long ago, or why we should ignore the earlier debate (effectively thumbing our noses at all those previous participants). Meanwhile, I will continue to indulge my silly, redundant habit of pointing out those sorts of pointless links every time. -- JJay 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Should be evaluated as author rather than academic, and passes on author criteria. TruthbringerToronto 17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes author test as frequently-published journalist in notable publications. —optikos 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be just barely notable per above arguements. Also, its always a mistake not address the first nomination in a renomination. Failure to address it, suggests, there's no flaw in the first, and no new reason, but merely a dislike at the outcome. --Rob 02:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to me that some arguments for deletion here would generally apply to stubs. The fact that an article is a stub in itself cannot be regarded as a criteroin for deletion. It should also be noted that NEITHER WP:NN, WP:PROFTEST NOR WP:BIO are Wikipedia policy. __meco 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortive Toronto Sketch Boom

This is either OR or NN. The phrase googles only pages which clearly originate in this Wikipedia article. The phenomenon is somewhat unverifiable, and even if it did happen, is not a notable histoical occurrence. mgekelly 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nn. HighInBC 16:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboycrashfan 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Keith Seeley

non-notable/vanity page Chris 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Possibly a user page? Doesn't appear notable. — RJH (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A bit hard to tell from the content if this is a vanity page or not, but it does appear to be a non-notable biography according to WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article does seem to simply be an attempt to turn a 'user page' into a main article. Dbertman 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, obvious vanity bio. ("Theatre credits"? Gimme a break...) Grandmasterka 19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 27th sea scouts

non-notable local Scout group (citation "primary activities are those of a standard sea scout movement") jergen 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as {{db-group}} candidates. Tagged as such.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: Withdrawn. — TheKMan^talk 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Virtual Library

Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria for notability of websites. Strothra 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Alexa ranking of around 25,000 and over 200,000 Google hits which is pretty high. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayjg. Pecher ^Talk 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayjg. —Viriditas | Talk 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough Bryce 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayjg.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - no reason to delete. --Ben Houston 00:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, 206,000 Google hits. Notable. Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep totally notable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keepper JayjgElizmr 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was AfD closed as article now properly listed under [Redirects for Deletion].  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York City infobox

Appears to be an unsuccessful attempt to create a template. The template that it redirects to is unused. The NYC article uses Infobox City instead. harpchad 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This should be on RfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at request of author. Capitalistroadster 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSSSA How Do You Feel?

An article about a cheer of a barely notable students association? Utterly & completely non-notable. Also unencyclopedic. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Definitely non-notable. It's not specific to this one organization, I've done in numerous student organizations/conferences before but don't think it's notable. Change to speedy delete as per G7, lone author of article feels it is no longer of use on Wikipedia per Snake_Chess_5's comment. Metros232 17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• As the author of this article, I have recently read up on the the verifyability of Wikipedia articles and have concluded that this article is indeed unfit to be existant any longer, however as the author of this article I know that the facts are true, so I will persue publication from a reputable source so that this article and be redone with the knowledge that it is both true and verifyable. I thank you for addressing your concerns to me and will do my utmost to ensure that future articles made by myself follow Wikipedia policies. Snake_Chess_5 17:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poop shakes