Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] October 21
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Дозор
Not notable web site, linkspam Delete abakharev 08:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems non-notable, advertising, no content, non-English name. Zero points. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 09:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Удалить linkspam (delete). Lupo 09:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- While we're on this foreign language kick, 除掉 (delete). -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- 'Cuir a-mach/Redd oot (delete) --MacRusgail 09:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Стереть к чёртовой матери :), or Delete. KNewman 10:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per referrer. --Ghirlandajo 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or translate. Molotov (talk)
15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete. mikka (t) 22:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Löschen Sie es weil es ist ein unbemerkenswertiger Eintrag. Yeah, delete. - Sensor 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Whakakore (delete) Grutness...wha? 23:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "a group of people that scanning the Web every day and indexing all important and interesting events"... I thought that was us! MCB 01:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- yIteq. De' ramqu'. (Delete, nonnotable.) --Wwwwolf 10:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Robert T | @ | C 23:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] افزایش کیفیت تصاویر, الماسواره ها, هيدروكراكينگ, کاهش مصرف سوخت, نانوتکنولوژی در فرایند هیدروکراکینگ, نانو فناوری چیست؟, نانودرکاهش مصرف سوخت, کا هش مصرف سوخت
One of a series of submissions in Farsi, uploaded on 8 October and listed on WP:PNT the same day.. Physchim62 05:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all Farsi articles unless Persian or Farsi wikipedia wants them and doesn't already have articles. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unless it's picked up. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 06:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per above -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- In fact, while we're at it, DELETE ALL. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete all articles in group referred to by nominator. Hopefully, this can be turned into a combined AFD (although I guess it's probably to late for that now) --rob 09:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)- Delete this and all related AFDs, below. What part of "English Wikipedia" don't these folks understand? 23skidoo 13:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Probably all of it, if they only speak Farsi. Kappa 15:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or translate. Molotov (talk)
15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)- Comment: to answer the question in the edit summary, these articles come at the end of alphabetical listings, at least those produced by the MediaWiki software anyway! Physchim62 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Note: above comment refers to edit summary from this AfD, which was merged here. BD2412 talk 20:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I am going to combine these AfD's now, please hold further votes for a few minutes.Cheers! BD2412 talk 20:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)- Combination done, vote on! BD2412 talk
- Delete all, by the way. BD2412 talk 20:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the whole lot. I agree with everyone else. If it doesn't use English characters, it should be here. Upload 'em on Wikipedia Iran or something. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all; I assume that the writer(s) did not realize that they were submitting the articles to the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Farsi Wikipedia. - Sensor 23:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to appropriate wiki if possible, if not, delete. Saberwyn 05:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm opposed to transwiki. Nobody should put this, or anything, in the Farsi wikipedia, unless they're fluent in Farsi, and are capable of reading the text. The two-weeks on WP:PNT was for the purpose of finding such a person, who was able/willing to do something with the content (which could mean making an English version and/or putting it in the Farsi version). No such person was found, and now it's time to delete it. --rob 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- m:Transwiki disagrees with you. See its example. —Cryptic (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- You're right it does disagree completely with me, and I completely disagree with it. We waste vastly to much effort trying save stuff that's hopeless, while we focus on deleting lots of beneficial contributions. It's bad enough we give it the two weeks and five days, but now it's gonna get even more time. We desperately need a speedy delete for this. But, I'll have to live with the way policy is, not how I want it to be, so I'll abstain. --rob 06:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- m:Transwiki disagrees with you. See its example. —Cryptic (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or translate --Me or a Robin 11:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus; therefore, keep.. – Alphax τεχ 06:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib
Delete. No claim to notability. He was someone’s son and he had a daughter. That’s the extent of the article: nothing more than genealogy. ♠DanMS 00:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (barely). I am changing the vote of my original nomination. The article has been somewhat expanded and claims of notability made for this person. However, the article needs to be cleaned up, referenced, and expanded, and the red links need to be filled in. ♠DanMS 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only notability I could find was that he is the uncle of Muhammad.-Haon 01:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)- Comment - no vote, but I suspect there's room for expansion for an uncle of Muhammed. BD2412 talk 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Figures this close to the center of a major religion are always notable, even if they just get a line in the texts themselves. --Aquillion 04:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, AFAIK, from the Muslim point of view, all the relatives of Muhammed are notable - Skysmith 09:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.Gator1 14:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Undecided Apparently he was the son of the grandfather of Muhammad. However, if that's absolutely all that can be said about him, it should be merged, probably into Shaiba ibn Hashim. I would support keeping if more information exists, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I said I would support keeping if more information could be found, and this has indeed happened. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
16:05, 21 October 2005
Delete per nom.--JJay 19:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)- Keep. Changing my vote per Bggoldie and the expansion of the article. Suggest everyone reconsider based on the new information. --JJay 03:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
M\e/r\g/e into Shaiba ibn Hashim, unless and until sufficient material is adduced to justify a separate article.BD2412 talk 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)- Delete not anything close to notable. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 22:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. This article has been stubbified and there is a link provided to a narrative involving this individual. How can this be NN? Surely one of our Muslim Wikipedists can expand the stub. - Sensor 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for the time being. Notability is certainly established, and, if this is truly unexpandable, it can be later merged into Shaiba ibn Hashim. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Weakkeep(add another weak)There are so many traditions with family lines... in some ways it's almost like listing all of the names at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew... and might very well be un-expandable. However, we often keep pretty non-notable people and I think that he has a degree of importance. I don't think it should be deleted now, but I would never have created it. gren グレン 04:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)- Delete per nom --Me or a Robin 10:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. There is a chain of prophet Muhammad's relatives and a story going back to the prophet: Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim → Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib → Duba'ah and her home → story with the camel (seen in 3 islamic sites [2], [3] and a blog). I would rather expand the text to include the story in this or separate article. Do we know what is the moral of the story? We have to respect muslims' beliefs and let them to decide the importance of the episode. --
Bggoldie 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Added two links to the article. I think it is worth expansion instead of deletion. -- Bggoldie 18:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. IMO the very convoluted and probably mostly mythological lineage of Mohammed would be better served in a single Genealogy of Mohammed article rather than 500 stubs of X was the son of Y and father of Z. If one of them did something more notable than simply being related to Mohammed we can still make an article about them. Lochness Monstah 22:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: If "containing convoluted and probably mostly mythological lineage" is a criterion for deletion, we could very well axe the articles on the Pentateuch. This individual is no less notable to Muslims than, say, Esau is to the Christians - and Esau has a whole boatload of stuff on him here. - Sensor 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, now it says "Originator of a movement for the suppression of violence and injustice, formed at Mecca, in order to put an end to the Sacrilegious War. Founder of the order of chivalry known as the Hilf al-fudul.". Kappa 22:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, why not? He was an major figure in the life of one of the most important person in history. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep short but informative stub Alf melmac 10:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus, votes are about evenly split between redirect and delete/keep. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alpha Kappa Pi
Fraternity organization that just started at one college? Seems non-notable. --Mysidia (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete A search for "Universidad Central del Este" "Alpha Kappa Pi" turned up nothing. Plus, we don't even have an article on the university in DR (although we do have a stub on the one in Puerto Rico). Acetic'Acid 04:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As per nomination. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 04:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. NN. *drew 11:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
16:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Redirect to Alpha_Sigma_Phi. There was a fraternity by the name of Alpha Kappa Pi which merged with Alpha Sigma Phi in 1946. See [4] and the Alpha Sigma Phi article itself. That fact is far more notable than a one-chapter fraternity in the Dominican Republic. - Sensor 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. Per Sensor. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 18:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Dab if the Dominican Rep. frat can be shown to exist, else Redir. Rich Farmbrough 22:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. This is not a part of Alpha Sigma Phi, see www.alfakappapi.com. I can't imagine any good reason to delete this stub, and doing so will alienate the new contributor who created this. Unfocused 02:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Then the title of the article should be changed to Alfa Kappa Phi since it is only located in a Spanish-speaking country and there's no need to transliterate f->ph. Do a redirect of Alpha Kappa Pi to Alfa Kappa Pi. Their site makes it seem that the fraternity is notable enough to keep.
- Comment Correct spelling of article ("Alfa Kappa Pi") only turns up 104 hits on Google. If their website is all they have to represent themselves, chances are they are not notable. Acetic'Acid 03:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that it's in the Dominican Republic and not in English, I wouldn't expect many Google hits in the first place. Unfocused 04:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- But this is an English Encyclopedia. It's only common sense that we would use English sources to research our topics. Acetic'Acid 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- We don't stop our coverage at the borders of countries where English is the primary language, even when sources are more difficult to find. See Masjid e Tooba and Wazir Mansion for examples of clearly important non-English topics where sources are notoriously difficult to source on the internet in English. Unfocused 06:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- But this is an English Encyclopedia. It's only common sense that we would use English sources to research our topics. Acetic'Acid 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind that it's in the Dominican Republic and not in English, I wouldn't expect many Google hits in the first place. Unfocused 04:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Theses guys have'nt done anything significant. The Republican 03:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-moose mat
Originial research big time. Molotov (talk)
16:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Ummmm. Google pulls up a few credible-looking hits, the best of which I can see is Story from Alaskan CBS subsidiary. I think this is Keep, Strange but true. The Land 17:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Keep. Have added The Land's link to the article as a source. KeithD (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Strong keep - a device that can save hundreds of lives not notable? you gotta be kidding me - SnowfalconKeep. What OR? --JJay 23:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Keep - appears to notable(ish), but should be expanded from dicdef. --MacRusgail 15:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Keep. Consider moving to Electro-Mat, the proper name for this strange and interesting product. Unfocused 03:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirect. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Basic mathematics
I am nominating this article for deletion because it is just incorrect and probably does the reader more harm than good.., containing such assertions as: Mathematics is a process which involves a string of integers or Every application of mathematics relies on the four basic operators of Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division. Mathematics, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division have their own articles, anyways. --Mysidia (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- 'Keep but cleanup it is an inherently notable article but needs work. Molotov (talk)
04:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - OK I started rewording it and cleaned up the definition but when I got to the sections I realized that they're already covered on their individual pages (and much better so) which was stated by the nominator. What's more is that it should really just redirect to Arithmetic or Elementary arithmetic, because that's the more correct name. I've edited it down to a (fairly) easy to read definition, but I don't really think that's even needed. Please check the history if you want to see the original. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 05:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The subject is clearly arithmetic. If "basic mathematics" is actualyl commonly used to refer to arithmetic, then redirect. Otherwise, delete. JPD (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to elementary arithmetic or arithmetic; it clearly says "Basic mathematics is also known as Elementary arithmetic or simply Arithmetic" in the article, or something to that effect. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I wrote that. The original article was quite a bit longer, and less clear before I cleaned it up. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 10:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Elementary mathematics. A redirect to arithmetic would be misleading; calculating with numbers isn't doing mathematics. Pilatus 11:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect as per NSLE Marcus22 14:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Elementary mathematics as per Pilatus. However, I note that that article is currently at sub-stub status. Capitalistroadster 17:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Elementary mathematics. --Holderca1 18:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm.. would the redirect really be ideal? While the original article was discussing arithmetic, not basic mathematics -- both articles skip discussion of the most basic and fundamental ideas of them all; deductive reasoning -- if there's something it should redirect to, it's probably just Mathematics, which, of course, should say something about Elementary Mathematics, but Basic Mathematics seems like a much broader category ... --Mysidia (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy redirected to Zoophilia. BD2412 talk 17:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bestality
Non encyclopedic and mispelled article that has useless info. An article with such a title - with correct spelling - exists. Molotov (talk)
16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I dont know if you look here, i'm normaly a user on a dif wiki, how ever, can you please inform the users of the page (While its under consideration) what the correct one is? I found no link to it on Sexual_fetishism other then what i added.
- I've replaced the page with a redirect to Zoophilia, which is what Bestiality redirects to. No need for this to be on AfD. The Land 16:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Burn Burn
There are no mentions of notable bands, making me think this is a label that doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC The Land 09:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The Land 09:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As per nomination. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - per The Land and appears to be a self-promotion - Bwfc 13:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Molotov (talk)
15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete per nomination. --Holderca1 18:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Conor McGoohan
Fionn mac Cumhail's son was Oisín - this entry is incorrect and/or unverifiable. Ziggurat 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination Paul Cyr 02:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - fie upon ye, for th'myths o' Erin fair are a thing o'beauty, and ney a matter fer triflin'. BD2412 talk 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Irish spellings should perhaps be used anyway. --MacRusgail 09:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
16:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Speedy Delete. Fionn's son was indeed Oisín. This is obviously a crank entry; the only Google hit for "Conor McGoohan" is a link to this article via an Israeli blog. - Sensor 22:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Devyani Rana
Non-notable If verifiable, add as a footnote to the main article on Dipendra of Nepal (or the Crown Prince if such exists) - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I can verify it, I've heard this story a few times, and it's a good one. If there was actually some info about the girlfriend (I mean ... if he killed his whole family over her, there's probably a reason. Was she really freakin' hot or something? ) then an article could be made here, but I've got a feeling that she not much more than a name, and this article just restates the story from Dipendra of Nepal. freshgavin TALK 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Dipendra of Nepal --MacRusgail 10:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Right now, the article does not have much information. However, it can be cleaned up and expanded - for example, she belongs to the royal family that ruled Nepal till 1951 and it was believed that the marriage could stabilise relations. Her mother is from an influential Indian royal family (Scindias). How she fled to India to escape media attention is an indicator of this. However, I'm perplexed that nothing about her after the shooting incident seems to be available in the public domain. --Gurubrahma 12:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Without disputing said facts, does she have relevance per se or only in relation to the Prince? - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable royal girlfriend. Kappa 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep I really don't find these notable and I had rejected a similart one. Molotov (talk)
16:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Weak Keep and expand.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep she was the cause of the royal massacre. I have read about her in 2001, so there will be references available if someone cares to read the Times of India dated June 2001. User:Nichalp/sg 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep short and informative stub. Alf melmac 10:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] E-muscle
Advertising for an nn company. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Molotov (talk)
16:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete per nomination. The Land 17:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination.--MacRusgail 15:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ggsearch
- Keep it - Should be stripped from some of the descriptions. But its not that bad and dont think its on purpose. --217.121.119.88 03:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
So try this: GGSearch is a toolbar that works independent of any browser and searches Google.
While it was created in 2002 by P.J.Kraaima it has Google's permission to search like it does since February 14, 2003 as one of the of the software tools that doesnt has to folow the Google API.
Due to its users it's available in many languages.
Template:compu-soft-stub Template:website-stub
So, less spam, but clear and to the point I think.
-
- That's really not any better. The sentence structures are ugly too. glocks out 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The Ggsearch article is really spam. It don't have much potential. glocks out 19:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - appears to be advertising. --MacRusgail 09:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, concur with MacRusgail. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - if not advertising then certainly POV - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Molotov (talk)
16:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Howell's Finest
Vanity article, but can't be speedied under Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles because it's not about a person. AJR | Talk 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for the reason given in nomination. -- AJR | Talk 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination Paul Cyr 02:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
16:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete per nom. --JJay 19:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Good grief. - Sensor 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as a vanity page. Devotchka 00:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Demographics of France. – Alphax τεχ 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Immigration to France
There is a much, much better article at "Demographics of France", the author has not sourced the statistics, and also the writer's IP seems to be one that has been causing trouble as "Gary Mayne" MacRusgail 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect would probably work. CambridgeBayWeather 11:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Cambridge. Molotov (talk)
16:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. --Carnildo 22:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] James Francis Hitchens
Seems to be a personal bio without notability established. Molotov (talk)
16:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - marked as such. No assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kalani
non-notable Flapdragon 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- delete - combo of a dicdef and an unverifiable person. Ziggurat 01:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed with Ziggurat. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with all of you above! --MacRusgail 09:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
16:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete per above --Rogerd 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Killik(band)
No notability established in my opinion. Molotov (talk)
16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. The Land 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as by nom. feydey 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --MacRusgail 15:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of music acts whose names contain an adverb
Totally uninteresting and pointless list. Reyk 00:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination Reyk 00:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is the ultimate in listcruft, simply begging to be deleted. Besides, “down” and “out” are not adverbs, they are prepositions. ♠DanMS 00:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not just pointless, but totally incorrect. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Man what's next? List of band names containing the letter 'V'? --W.marsh 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like an attempt to win some kind of prize for the wierdest and most pointless list on Wikipedia. (Actually down and out are adverbs, but that's by the by.) Flapdragon 01:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Nom -Haon 01:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. You have got to be kidding. From the editor who brought us List of movies whose title contains a fraction or non-integer. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- This guy has a mania for lists. Reyk 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Maybe a list of music acts that involve instruments will be next...Karmafist 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. But why isn't List of movies whose title contains a fraction or non-integer up for deletion? FRS 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- By all means put it up. Reyk 03:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. In general internet users rank integers over adverbs in their 'slighly interesting topics' box. But I agree that it's rediculous. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 04:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not useful. *drew 11:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Now this is getting silly. 23skidoo 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete Unreal. Marskell 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator --Holderca1 18:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, listcruft at its worst. Punkmorten 19:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Crufty cruft cruft. - Sensor 22:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Very sad - eight bands on the list, and only two of them with real adverbs in their names! Grutness...wha? 00:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, erase, bleach eyeballs, ban user, sow salt in fields. MCB 00:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete this listcruft --JAranda | watz sup 01:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow. gren グレン 03:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Someone was really bored when they created this. I'm trying count how many people care about articles of speech in band names. Delete the shear stupidity. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 18:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. The list was my idea (see comments in Talk:List of movies whose title is eponymous with a character in it) but I never thought anyone would take it seriously and start an article. I'll stay out of the vote, but in the article's defense, not that it matters, all the adverbs are real adverbs contrary to the opinions of self-appointed grammar experts DanMS and Grutness, with the possible exception of Reel in Reel Big Fish, which is only a pun on an adverb. Let's keep on task; I really don't think the factual accuracy of the article is in question. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 18:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as bad joke --Tremont30 22:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, although all the words do appear to be adverbs. --TantalumTelluride 17:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of people widely considered eccentric
Before anyone asks, yes, this is this articles 4th visit to VFD/AFD, which I assume is a record. the second trip can be found here, the third trip here, and apparently the first occurred before Wikipedia even had archiving for delete debates!. So, needless to say, this article has been around the block a few timesdue in large part to a few reasons. Despite this record, this article also probably is close to the record for the most reverts and the most NPOV notices (excluding George W. Bush, who's in a league of his own), corrected below, thanks Trollderella Karmafist 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Note re initial nomination. This is in no way a record number. See Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America and Wikipedia:10 GNAA VfD nominations pool. Trollderella 17:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Who defines eccentricity? What is considered eccentric? And by who's authority and viewpoint? The closest I've known anyone ever coming to this would be in the DSM IV, but even those definitions are fairly generalized and subjective, which leads me to my next point.
- Unlike most articles, this one could eventually become a breeding ground for WP:NPA violations. One user might consider another user "eccentric" or "wierd" and place them on there.
- What defines "widely"? That's another fairly subjective term, "widely" to one person can be entirely different than "widely" to someone else. If anyone has a precedent on what that actually is (I have a viewpoint on my user page, but that's just a viewpoint and not binding towards anything other than that), please let me know.
At the very least, this article needs to be renamed, and drastically cleaned up, perhaps to the point of where it would need to become a Collaboration of the Week for it to be fixed. Otherwise, it'll probably be back here again and again, like it has in the past. I say let's Delete this, like many other unwiedly lists have been recently on AFD. Karmafist 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete inherently POV listcruft.--Isotope23 16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the subject seems notable and it survived three times already - this one should be no different. Possible cleanup because this article is capable of being here. Also, articles that should have been deleted a long time ago can be seen here (which I think is an embarassment). Why can't this article stay, and grow, and mature to add notable names at long last? I think this somewhat akeep with a possible cleanup Molotov (talk)
16:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Keep Quality of the list is impressive and undermines the arguments for deletion. Honbicot 16:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV. And it violates WP:WEASEL. Flowerparty■ 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - like the lists of best and worst films, the criteria on this list have evolved, and will continue to. It is actively maintained, and is a useful list. Trollderella 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. What can I say? Surely they are notable.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 16:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete cleaning this up to the standards of, say, the best and worst films lists would require everything to be sourced. This is really no more encyclopedic than, say, an article listing ugly people or stupid people. The truly legendarily eccentic ones should be merged into Eccentricity (behavior) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, eccentricity is subjective. Heck, Jesus could be considered an eccentric for his time. Andrew Levine 16:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Yes, he could have been, if any significant groups had tried to paint his unusual activities as "eccentric" rather than either "holy and righteous" or "dangerously subversive". But since none did, he doesn't belong on the "list of people widely considered eccentric". This list is not about people who are eccentric, it's about people who have been considered eccentric. Hence even if Jesus shares some traits with people on this list, it doesn't matter as long as few, if any, would associate him with eccentricity. This page is as much about popular opinion as about the people listed themselves; it would even be appropriate to list someone who a smear campaign tried to label as "eccentric", as long as that view has become a very dominant one. -Silence 19:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Necessarily POV. As noted, if you can source everything perhaps it would make more sense but as it stands there is no standard by which we can measure who does and doesn't belong. Genius and fame are often based in part on eccentricity. This is far to open-ended. Marskell 17:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete inherently POV and culturally subjective. You can make the case that just about anyone is "widely considered eccentric", or that no one is, depending on what you make the context. Unmaintainable list. --W.marsh 17:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Starblind. Request if appropriate to retain contents in talk page archive of Eccentricity (behavior). It is a nice list, despite warrenting deletion. (oops ∴ here…♠ 18:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC))
- Delete as per nom. Inherently PoV, and unsourced so ti isn't even a recoprd of verifiable opnion elsewhere. Unmaintainable list. DES (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Look, I am widely considered eccentric, and you don't see me putting a bullet point for "Wikipedia User Anville" in this list, do you?
18.51.5.139 19:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Anville 19:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- You could say the same thing about almost hundreds of perfectly good lists on Wikipedia. Almost all Wikipedia lists have as an unstated policy that only people who are already noteworthy enough to have their own article on Wikipedia merit inclusion on the list. And as if that wasn't enough, you could easily interpret "widely considered" to partially indicate that the person needs to be widely known of before being widely considered. -Silence 19:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator; list is inherently subjective. Hall Monitor 19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Like my vote in the 3rd nomination POV --JAranda | watz sup 19:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Inherently POV. Time for this baby to go to sleep. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unmaintainable, perpetually-POV list. --Carnildo 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - POV, unsourced, weaselly worded. Qwghlm 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- keep interesting and useful list. The fact that it's been voted on three times before and kept every time should be some indication. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I believe this is listcruft, and that the three prior decisions to keep were all erroneous. Let us now rectify that error. The Literate Engineer 00:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as arbitrary, inherently POV, preposterous listcruft. MCB 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete' as POV, arbitrary list. How has this survived so long? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep However radically change it or essentially start over. Limit it to people primarily known for their eccentricity rather than other things.--T. Anthony 10:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 05:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep - in spite of being somewhat subjective, a list of eccentrics would be very useful, especially those who are self-identified or play on it. --MacRusgail 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep - The list may have some POV entrees in its currently, but that does not imply that the list is inherently POV, and if it's at all fixable, even if it would require months of work, it doesn't fit the standards for deletion. If you don't feel like putting the effort in to try to clean up the article and bring it up to standards, then don't bother; but don't prevent others from working on improving it by voting to delete it, unless you truly think that it's totally unsalvagable. The fact that a topic is disputable does not imply that it is impossible to write about; just because different people have conceptions of what is or isn't eccentric doesn't mean that there aren't people who are widely considered eccentric. Additionally, "eccentric" is hardly comparable to "list of fat people" or "list of stupid people", as it's a very specific term, is certainly not strictly pejorative, and, even if it isn't universally conceived of in a singular, exact way, it's still certainly very widely conceived of as having a certain set of noteworthy traits. -Silence 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, merging this article into eccentricity (behavior), even in the smallest of ways, also isn't a good idea, as the list would either dominate a very small article, or be trimmed down enormously without us having had time to discuss any changes—instead, let's trim this article down by removing all people on the list who aren't widely considered eccentric, and myabe someday, a few years down the line, when the list is at a managable level and the "eccentric behavior" article is several pages long, the two can be merged. Whether we shorten it or keep it at the same size, merging it into that eccentric behavior article would just make the page less useful for everyone. The fact that many people on the list specifically say in their article that they are widely considered eccentric, some even mentioning it in the opening paragraph(!), shows that claims of the term's total subjectivity are inconsistent with its usage throughout Wikipedia. -Silence 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Reply can be found here.
- Keep - Seeing as how the list tells WHY they are considered eccentric, this page may not have complete NPOV, but still allows the reader to make up thier own minds. As it is, it is an interesting list and I for one found many interesting people in this list due to its existance. No harm in keeping it, but we lose something if we don't. Comic 19:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Fix it, don't delete it. Andre (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Silence and Andre. This article is definitely worthy of a fixing, but deletion would eliminate a valid article. Rarr 00:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree entirely with Rarr's description of this as a "valid article", Comic's statement that there is "no harm in keeping it, but we lose something if we don't," and it has nothing to do with the POV red herring. No one has yet said anything about why this list ever should have been started to begin with, and I do believe that list writers have to meet a burden of proof to show that. What purpose does putting ~150 people's names into a list serve? How can this list expand anyone's understanding of the concept of eccentricity, or expand someone's knowledge about any of the listed people? I contend that it cannot, and as such, the list makes no positive contribution to Wikipedia and two negative ones: it wastes server space and adds clutter, and worse, it furthers the false and detrimental attitude that vapid, unproductive, lists are permissible. I believe that this is a vapid, unproductive list, and will continue to do so until someone convinces me not that we can build an objective list of eccentrics, but that we should build such a list. Until such time, I strongly urge all editors to join me in calling for this entry's deletion. The Literate Engineer 01:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- There are several figures in history who are mostly noted for being eccentric. Several books and documentaries of eccentric people have been done. A list allows you to easily get to articles concerning such people without the same kind of groping a category or nothing would do. Now the list as it currently stands is poor, but you can strongly urge something without being right. If it is to be deleted I hope there is in least a category for eccentrics to replace it unless there is such a category already.--T. Anthony 02:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- As you've noticed, there is a Category:Notable eccentrics. However, don't rush off to add people to that category quite yet: if this deletion succeeds, that one will inevitably follow very quickly, as there's even more of a case for deleting the category than the article (i.e. the category is genuinely POV because it specifically says that the people listed are "eccentrics"; the page is not inherently POV, because it says "people widely considered eccentric": it's about POVs, it's not POVed itself). Personally, I'd support keeping both the category (though rename the category to "People widely considered eccentric"; the "noteworthy" is unnecessary, both because it's POV and because anyone noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia is already noteworthy enough to be in the category, hence redundant) and the list. Or, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably choose: the list. Why? Consider:
- Lists are maintained on a single page that anyone can easily monitor and check on the validity of each new addition to the page, while also ensuring that noone who belongs on the page gets removed. Categories, being based on edits to hundreds of distinct articles, are next to impossible to keep clean of bogus additions, especially when they get large. The easiest way to maintain the category would be to have both the category and the list, and simply once in a while go through the category with the list in hand and check to see if there's anyone on the list who's not on the category, or vice versa; then investigate why the discrepency exists, and correct it (either by removing the person from one or adding the person to the other).
- With a list, it's possible to list explanations next to each person to specify why they're considered eccentric. Even if you think that the current way the LoPWCE handles descriptions is poor (I certainly do), it's improvable and could eventually be quite valuable, whereas with a category there will never be an efficient way to explain why each person is on the list; it's nothing but a big alphabetized list of names, no more useful to someone not familiar with the individuals than if the page was total gibberish. If we had both the list and the category, the category could be the quick, easy, shorthand version of the list, providing the brief alphabetized archive, whereas the list would be more expansive and informative, providing further subdivisions to make exploration easier—whereas the category makes it easier to find a single person who you already know of and are looking for, which I'd say is less important than the list's role, because if you already know the guy's name you can just do a Search for him anyway. Descriptions, on the other hand, highlight perceived eccentric behavior, occupation, nationality, etc. and give people much more to work with.
- Criticize the current list if you want for not being cited (I added a NOR tag to it, incidentally, so we can get started on the long-term mission of adding sources for all the claims eventually), but keep in mind that it's at least eventually possible to have a fully-cited, expansive, high-quality article named "List of people widely considered eccentric", even if that's not a practical likelihood (though I think it is!). Categories make citation impossible; we just have to accept the people included as gospel, and centralizing debate over which people to include and which not to include will be nightmarish without an article page, as much of the discussion of who is and isn't "widely considered eccentric" will end up centering on the pages of the individual people described, making consistency a huge issue! Having both list and category gives us the best of both worlds, tying everything into a single article but also involving each individual article in the article by putting the category at the bottom of their pages. Win-win.
- Anyway, sorry for the length of that. It's not like this article is a pet project of mine; I only recently stumbled onto it, and had just barely begun to make changes to it at all, when the AfD notice abruptly appeared after my first edit. Very disheartening, but the last few votes have given me a little hope that people are willing to give this article a fourth chance, and see what can be made of it. -Silence 03:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- As you've noticed, there is a Category:Notable eccentrics. However, don't rush off to add people to that category quite yet: if this deletion succeeds, that one will inevitably follow very quickly, as there's even more of a case for deleting the category than the article (i.e. the category is genuinely POV because it specifically says that the people listed are "eccentrics"; the page is not inherently POV, because it says "people widely considered eccentric": it's about POVs, it's not POVed itself). Personally, I'd support keeping both the category (though rename the category to "People widely considered eccentric"; the "noteworthy" is unnecessary, both because it's POV and because anyone noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia is already noteworthy enough to be in the category, hence redundant) and the list. Or, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably choose: the list. Why? Consider:
-
-
- Deleted item
- And how is that relevant to how people should vote here? Whether a category, a list, or both should be used must be determined on a case-by-case basis, just as VfDs must. -Silence 05:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- It shouldn't, I probably should've put that on my talk page. I deleted it now.--T. Anthony 05:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Er, I was just trying to make a point about the voting to keep things in perspective, not saying you had to delete it. But OK. -Silence 05:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- It shouldn't, I probably should've put that on my talk page. I deleted it now.--T. Anthony 05:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- And how is that relevant to how people should vote here? Whether a category, a list, or both should be used must be determined on a case-by-case basis, just as VfDs must. -Silence 05:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted item
-
- Keep. Definitely an enclopedia-appropriate reference for those specifically looking for eccentric characters, as this list, however fluid, has been very helpful to me in doing. Can anyone doubt that John Mytton or Stephen Tennant were not notable eccentrics (as in a person of "odd or unconventional behavior" [16])? And, fundamentally, I wouldn't have known of such delightful characters of history had it not been for this list! --Clapaucius* 07:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, must be my fourth keep vote on this article; for reasons, see previous VfDs. David | Talk 11:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per User:Silence. αγδεε (ε τ c) 09:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This had a potential to be quite weaselly, but right at the outset there is a good, clear paragraph about what "eccentric" means in this context. Well done, and frankly more careful and thorough than many other lists. If there are problems with a person or two on the list, well then fix the article; don't throw it away. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment Please don't delete comments or links to them. My goal with that statement was to move lengthy commentaries such as the ones above to a separate area where people who wish to get "the jist" of the conversation can see it without wading through an overflow of information. I was in the middle of writing the response, I was doing several other things, only to find that the link was gone. Karmafist 04:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- I didn't delete any comments or links to them, because the link wasn't going to a comment yet (and it wasn't clear that it was going to). You're the one who seemed to be about to delete my comment, by transfering it to another page where it would few people would read it and see the objections. I'm glad you didn't go ahead with that, and will certainly continue this discussion on the Talk page. The main reason for my edit was to restore the : and remove the
, though, to make it clearer what order the comments came in. I apologize for deleting the link before waiting to see what your plans were for it. Of course, speaking of comments that belong on the talk page.. why do these two have to be here? Oy. -Silence 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't delete any comments or links to them, because the link wasn't going to a comment yet (and it wasn't clear that it was going to). You're the one who seemed to be about to delete my comment, by transfering it to another page where it would few people would read it and see the objections. I'm glad you didn't go ahead with that, and will certainly continue this discussion on the Talk page. The main reason for my edit was to restore the : and remove the
- Keep and possibly rename. The current name arose from the second deletion debate back in December 2004. A number of users have brought up concerns about the term "widely", and I agree. In the second debate. the original proposed name was "List of individuals who are famous for being widely considered to be eccentric". I cut it down to "List of people widely considered to be eccentric", and soon another user moved it to its current title, without the "to be" (which was a big Elements of Style blunder on my part :-) ). Looking back on the original title, I think the "famous" part was more important than the now-disputed "widely" part, mostly because I think it's a good idea to keep this to people famous for their eccentricity, perhaps among other things. So, how about this for a new title: List of people famous for being considered eccentric. Anyway, now I'll try to get off that tangent... We'll never agree on an absolute place to draw the line between "eccentric" and "normal", but I think most of the people on this list do belong here. Who would argue that, say, Howard Hughes isn't enough of a weirdo for this list? How about Norton I of the United States? Another important point: we're not asserting that the people on this list are eccentric, only that they're perceived as such. But isn't such a judgment unverifiable and subject to bias and original research? Not necessarily. How much dispute can there be, from contemporary accounts and elsewhere, that a lot of people think it's really, really weird to build a house for 38 years to confuse the spirits or spend years doing nothing but lying around in bed? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 09:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Not a bad idea, but I think that would cause new problems with many of the people on the list. For example, could we keep Albert Einstein on the list? He's famous for being eccentric, but only because he's already much for famous for other, unrelated things. Furthermore, it doesn't do anything at all to solve the main problem people have had with the current wording: that there's no solid, definite line to draw between "widely considered" and "not widely considered". I don't see a big problem with this myself, since I expect that only a few cases will have disputes over whether or not they're "widely considered" enough, and the rest will be pretty obvious one way or the other, but for those who do object on these grounds, adding "famous" has the exact same problem: where do you draw the line between "famous" and "not famous"? How "famous" do you have to be, and how "eccentric", and how "widely considered"? Personally, I think the ideal way to implement the concept of "people who are famous for being widely considered eccentric" vs. "famous people who are widely considered eccentric" is to keep the list where it is, but have some extra marker, like an asterisk, to denote people who are famous chiefly or entirely because of their eccentricity (as many on the list are), vs. famous historical figures who happen to also be widely considered eccentric. Of course, this line isn't the easiest one to draw in some situations either, since there are a lot of "kind of noteworthy" people who might have a Wikipedia article without their bizarre quirk, but are enormously more noteworthy for it. So.. tricky. -Silence 10:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- But what's the point? Yes, Sarah Winchester, Brian Wilson, Norton I, and Howard Hughes may well all be widely considered eccentrics, or famous for their eccentricity, or widely notable people who are or have been regarded as eccentric by a proportionally significant percentage of the population, or whatever you want to call the list. What I don't understand is what reason there is for putting all those people together in a list. Is it just for the amusement of people like Clapaucius? Or the convenience of his hypothetical researcher? Or Silence's claims that it's better than a category? Those aren't good enough for me. Besides, eccentricity is an encyclopedic concept, but that only justifies eccentricity. The listed people may be encyclopedic, but that only justifies their individual articles. Neither justifies the list. As far as I can tell, there is no reason that this list, in any form, by any title, with any inclusionary criteria, should remain on Wikipedia as an independent entry. The Literate Engineer 14:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- I did not base my "keep" vote on the fact that it's better than a category; that argument came later, in response to T. Anthony finding that category and assuming that it would be used if this list was deleted we would simply switch to the category, when I believe that ideally we should use both. While I disagree with the people who have voted to delete this page, I at least understand those who have voted to delete it on the basis that it's unsalvageably biased (though it's not inherently biased, contrary to some votes above) or who think that it should be cut down to only a handful of people and merged into the eccentric behavior article. However, if you base your "strong delete" vote (the only one on the whole page so far) on the fact that you personally simply aren't interested in the topic (which your latest comments have led me to believe; do correct me if I am mistaken) and hence it's "listcruft" to you, I'd take issue with that (though of course you have the right to vote as you wish). The fact that you would never use a page like this doesn't mean that noone else would have a legitimate reason to research noteworthy people who have been considered eccentric throughout history. Additionally, the fact is, while perhaps most of the people on the list of eccentric people currently are also famous for something other than their perceived eccentricity, a large number aren't really noteworthy for anything (or much) other than their unusual, eccentric behavior or qualities. Those sorts of people would not be listed anywhere else on Wikipedia where a person would find their articles while casually browsing, and thus many high-quality, interesting, informative, useful articles on significant topics would almost never be read, even by people with a special interest in eccentrics. Lists and categories like this, disputable and hard to maintain though they may be, are beyond a shadow of a doubt useful to many people, as there are many people who are very interested in and study people throughout history who have defied social norms and established themselves as "eccentrics". And that is the purpose of this page. -Silence 10:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and merge with eccentricity(behavior)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalPisces (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 October 2005
- Keep. The criteria are imprecise and the subject POV-breeding, but that's much outweighed by usefulness to those looking for a concise guide to eccentrics. Surely the problems are not a reason to delete. -R. S. Shaw 04:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep, apparently neither nominator nor anyone else wanted it deleted. Friday (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Race of Jesus
I tried to create a notable article here, and wanted it to be a featured candidate, but apparently it just isn't good enough. Molotov (talk)
04:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't get it. Is there a reason this article should be deleted? What is it? Friday (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The article's talk page might shed more light on what's going on, although not on why this page should be deleted. --Aquillion 04:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Nominator has no reason to delete it, is reacting to my comments at Talk:Race of Jesus. He created the article from scratch about 26 hours ago, and I thought it had a ton of potential, so I did some copyedits on it and mentioned two questions regarding the article's relationship with the other Jesus articles, but apparently Molotov was just looking for praise at the time, not any sort of debate. We're discussing it in our Talk pages currently. -Silence 04:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I tried my best, article should be kept My action was out of anger and despararity. But I am not a vandal, nor was I looking for praise particularly. BUt I am very sick of debating all the time - I have tried my best on everything here, so naturally I am sick of tug-of-war.Molotov (talk)
04:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I tried my best, article should be kept My action was out of anger and despararity. But I am not a vandal, nor was I looking for praise particularly. BUt I am very sick of debating all the time - I have tried my best on everything here, so naturally I am sick of tug-of-war.Molotov (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Randall Fenlon
No relevant Google hits. Information on chinchilla seems to contradict this article. I smell a hoax. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As stated, chinchilla boasts The international trade in chinchilla fur goes back to the 1500s, and you know what? I believe it. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 10:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Molotov (talk)
16:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. Thryduulf 17:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Safety standards
POV (and if it wasn't it would merely be duplicating other pages) Just zis Guy, you know? 10:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Original POV stuff deleted pending AfD decision. This page could serve as a placeholder to link to a list of various safety standards, but since the page Safety already fills the primary requirement and individual standards are more appropriately linked to their subject pages (such as road safety) even this would appear to be moot. The page itself seems in the main to be one user's reaction against the neutrality of several bike and bike safety pages.
- Possible keep has potential. Molotov (talk)
16:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Keep and Redirect to Safety. squell 20:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by another admin, all revisions of article was nonsense. Thue | talk 19:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Satellite launch vehicle
Needs verification. Molotov (talk)
15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Excuse me, but exactly what needs to be verified? The only content in the article is patent nonsense. The taste of some random guy for cheese is not something to be verified in wikipedia. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- So is this a meaningless exercise or was there something useful in the article before it was vandelized? The page title would lead me to suspect that the topic was notable. — RJH 17:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Superpolls
This article is purely promotional and the website doesn't need its own article. K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. - K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertising. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. FRS 03:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertising. *drew 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
16:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete per nom. --JJay 19:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete...Hurry now! This offer ends soon! No ads in Wikipedia. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 22:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising. - Sensor 22:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Holderca1 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Queen Of Make-Believe
Useless page that people probably won't read. Unwikified stub. -rayluT 01:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's an episode of Barney and Friends. Keep as per the precedent on episodes of TV shows. Meelar (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Please. Ifnord 02:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- There isn't a consistent precedent as to whether episodes of all television shows are worthy of articles -- some have been kept, some not. In this case, there's no indication that any other episodes of this series have articles, and the fan base of Barney and Friends seems a bit too young to want to read encyclopedia articles about the series. Delete. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not an issue of whether or not someone will read it, but whether it's notable or not. (Though notability surely implies that it will be read.) Individual Barney episodes are not only non-notable, but isn't the storyline of this episode almost exactly the same as every other one? (slight sarcasm.) freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 05:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
16:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - Keep, TV show seen by millions of people and thus notable. Kappa 16:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. Andrew Levine 17:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Metropolitan. --JJay 19:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- M/e/r/g/e into a List of Barney and Friends episodes until that list is large enough to require having articles broken out. BD2412 talk 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable television episode. Denni☯ 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per BD2412 and WP:FICT. No indication of notability for this episode, beyond the very general series-wide notability mentioned by Kappa. No indication that any of these episodes, let alone this one, can be expanded beyond a stub. Barno 18:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per BD2412. Unfocused 02:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Now I've never watched Barney, but doesn't this description sound like just about every episode of every children's show ever made? And isn't Barney one of those shows thats on 5 days a week, every week, for years? Isn't attempting to have an article on every one of those shows futile to the point of lunacy? -R. fiend 21:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Virgil's Root Beer
This is either deliberate spam, or the result of a very bored person sitting around looking at stuff. Either way it's non-notable. Reyk 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep A beer with that name appears to exist. Google returns 1.800 hits for "Virgil's Root Beer" (with the "), some with the name of the beer in the title. There is even a review for it! (a very negative one, actually) [23]. That the author was bored is likely, but does not matter. Article needs a cleanup. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'm about 95% sure I've had that, actually. No reason to believe it isn't real, and the wording certainly doesn't resemble spam in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, real brand of root beer. Kappa 15:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I've seen this brand in at least a dozen supermarkets in my area, worst case scenario would be a cleanup if it read as spam, this is definately notable. Karmafist 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Paolo Liberatore - pretty Italian name - is that Paul the Liberator? Molotov (talk)
16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)- Right. You know the Italian language! (at least two words of it...) Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a nationally sold brand of root beer, and I suggest you try it if you can, as it's really good. Andrew Levine 16:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but is this an article about Root Beer or Wine? I was waiting for the author to describe the body and esters of the Root Beer... Could stand a cleanup.--Isotope23 17:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree this looks like someone who was bored just typed in some text from the label (does that make it a copyvio?) but legitimate brands are article worthy. Needs clean-up and expansion, however. 23skidoo 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Sold at Trader Joe's and nationally-known. Agreed that it needs bigtime cleanup. - Sensor 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless reference can be found in Iliad. I haven't heard of it, and I think the less commercial brands on wikipedia the better. --MacRusgail 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- How would that benefit the users? Kappa 16:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- There are thousands of brands, many of which are not notable at all, and they all have big marketing machines behind them... they don't need free advertising IMO, and I'm not sure most of the articles are encyclopedic, unless they can include stuff like histories, controversies, lawsuits, or perhaps even significant cultural references. --MacRusgail 17:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- So the users can rely on the big marketing machines and don't need any NPOV source of information? Kappa 19:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- These articles are a form of marketing, unintentional or otherwise, unless they include more evidence for their notability (other than merely high sales which many brands have). My local corner shop sells hundreds of items, many of which can be found elsewhere, but are not particularly notable. This is an article about a "root beer", telling us it's a "root beer". --MacRusgail 14:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- So the users can rely on the big marketing machines and don't need any NPOV source of information? Kappa 19:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- There are thousands of brands, many of which are not notable at all, and they all have big marketing machines behind them... they don't need free advertising IMO, and I'm not sure most of the articles are encyclopedic, unless they can include stuff like histories, controversies, lawsuits, or perhaps even significant cultural references. --MacRusgail 17:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- How would that benefit the users? Kappa 16:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep NPOV information on commercial brands and products is extremely valuable. Will be even more so in about a hundred years. Unfocused 02:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wafa al yazidi
One sentence article: "(f) Palestinian artist. Born on 3 Aug 1973, France." Google turns up nothing. No evidence of verifiability or notability, anyone else know anything about the topic? —Morven 11:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless verified / notable —Morven 11:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete apparently nn --MacRusgail 11:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'd personally have speedied. Ambi 12:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete hoax/vanity or non-notable bio chowells 13:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Molotov (talk)
16:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-¨Do not Delete¨notable palestinine artist. Home page and Critic through Google (GR)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
