Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] April 14
- 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 (e) 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] John Tennyson
This is about what seems as a non-notable author. I only found a few pages with this person mentioned on Google. Unless it is notable it should be deleted and possibly added to List of novelists from the United States. --Mason 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and list on List of novelists from the United States. Royboycrashfan
00:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC) - Comment: I don't know anything about Mr. Tennyson. However, where is the logic in deleting this and then adding Mr. Tennyson to List of novelists from the United States? That list clearly states that: "Novelists on this list should be notable in some way, and ideally have a Wikipedia article". If Mr. Tennyson has written published novels, then he probably should have an article and this stub should be expanded. If he hasn't, then this should be deleted and his name should not be added to any lists at wikipedia. -- JJay 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Amazon apparently has nothing by him (although there's an musical album by a different John Tennyson), while the references on Google appear to be about a musician.Gjc8 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the above evidence. Don't just toss him into a list: if a topic isn't verifiable enough for an article, it's not verifiable enough for a list either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Gjc8's evidence, fails WP:BIO, nothing notable. --Terence Ong 02:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per NN bio and nom. Funnybunny 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless anyone can provide any substance to the article. If deleted, then no reason to list. Tyrenius 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability. The article just says he's a "writer" - a writer of what? --Hyperbole 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. SorryGuy 07:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. Sheehan (Talk) 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The content has just one sentence.--Jusjih 12:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above, and the first edit said "Under construction". color probe·Talk·Contribs·@ RCP 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per AL and nom. RGTraynor 15:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I bet that some guy named John Tennyson who thinks he's a writer made the page.--CountCrazy007 16:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have to go wirh Delete as well. Nothing plausible in the Library of Congress catalog (all the choices are too old), and no suggestive Googles for ("John Tennyson" writer Vancouver). -Colin Kimbrell 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merged with United Nations Space Command. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flash clone
Halo-cruft, too little background info.--Zxcvbnm 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Halocruft. Royboycrashfan 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to United Nations Space Command. Melchoir 02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and delete. Alba 03:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Melchoir. It actually looks like United Nations Space Command could benefit from some of this information. --Hyperbole 04:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per above. SorryGuy 07:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge for reasons described above. Sheehan (Talk) 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Merge with UNSC. (I added some background info)
- Merge per above Computerjoe's talk 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Royboycrashfan 14:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mwaluganje elephant sanctuary
Non-notable--Zxcvbnm 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I didn't really think it through before nominating it, I'll give a better reason next time I nominate something.
- Keep. Why is non-notable? It is referenced in Shimba Hills National Reserve (I added the link, but the ref was there). Give it a chance to develop. It was only started recently. I have wikified it, added links etc. --Bduke 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I have to agree. Why would we want to get rid of an article on an elephant sanctuary? Do we have too many of this type of article? Looks important to me. -- JJay 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, could you explain how this is non-notable? Passes various Wikipedia tests. Royboycrashfan 01:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep give it a chance.Bridesmill 01:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep vague nomination text, and it can grow, if you give it a chance. Funnybunny 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand, notable. --Terence Ong 02:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it is notable enough for me. SorryGuy 07:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep seems notable. Sheehan (Talk) 07:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, a notable part of an effort to save a species that is under duress (although I'm not familiar with their exact status in Kenya...) Grandmasterka 09:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Diclonius
Delete
- Delete someone on irc told me to vote delete so uuuuhhh
- Delete Unencyclopediac and could exist inside the Elfen Lied page. The Google argument seems pretty weak, wikipedia has an incredibly high page rank thus it is often the first linked page simply because of its structure and how that interacts with PageRank. --ReptileLawyer 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak merge into Elfen Lied. Royboycrashfan 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete More useless anime bloat; this does not deserve its own article and is probably not notable enough for Wikipedia, period -66.92.130.57 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Worthless fancruft. incog 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Pointless rubbish and very poorly written at that.--203.109.219.183
- Delete stupid furry shit
- Delete Worthless, pointless, bloated, stupid, rubbishy, furry fancruft. Fishhead64 06:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I guess it wouldn't be too wrong to call this fancruft... Sheehan (Talk) 07:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as pedocruft. If an edited-down version would "ruin" the main article in a merge, then perhaps it's bloated NN on the face of it. RGTraynor 15:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's not relevant to anything outside of the anime itself. Merge it into the main article. --UsaSatsui 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The anon makes many good points, as does UsaSatsui. Google hits =/= notable, per se, and it really isn't the least bit relevant outside of the anime itself, especially at this level of detail. Hince, textbook fancruft. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Poorly written fancruft. 204.191.190.187 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep
- Keep Verifiable, notable, loads of Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Tons of esoterica is verifiable. And lots of sites which don't belong in an encyclopedia get tons of Google hits. As for it being 'notable', I really think this deserves explanation. A dissertation on some random aspect of a not particularly popular children's cartoon is not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. What is the value of this information to anyone other than a fan community that is better served by a website specialized in anime? -66.92.130.57 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Merging it would do more harm than good to Elfen Lied - it would dominate the article. Wikipedia is not paper, and Google indicates that this is far more notable than many things Wikipedia has articles on. --Hyperbole 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well written, would ruin Elfen Lied on merge. --InShaneee 05:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Merging or deleting would be comparable to merging Tau with Warhammer 40K or deleting it. JimTS 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is actually a major part of the anime, it could perhaps be condensed and put into the main article. There's no way we could delete this, however. It also isn't great at its present state, however...--CountCrazy007 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't interest me in the slightest, but it is a good article for those who are interested. Wiki does have the space to cater for all tastes. Tyrenius 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this; it's a perfectly valid spin-off article. -Colin Kimbrell 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A merger would screw up the Elfen Lied article. Pikawil 18:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is very useful. Merging it with the Elfen Lied article would make the article just too long. Breaking it down like this is much better.
- 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. – Will (E@) T 05:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of portable applications
[edit] Keep
- Keep. Well documented list, long introduction and annotations. I can't see anything wrong here. -- JJay 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep only the definition and external links section. And delete the rest. Jrinaldi 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The individual items listed are typically notable enough (which seems a reasonable requirement for inclusion), and this is useful information. Some of the same effect could be obtained by a Category:Portable applications, but not the grouping, and this also leaves the possibility of adding further annotations to the list entries. WP:NOT mentions "Mere collections of internal links, except for ... structured lists". I'd say this is a structured list; see also Wikipedia:List guideline. LambiamTalk 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep everything! It is a great list and I really appriciate the resource. No reason that I can find to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.49.30.154 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm using NOT too, but that Wikipedia is not paper. This is pretty useful, and I hate lists. T K E 04:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep At least it's a useful list. Fishhead64 06:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, while WP:NOT is generally useful I think we need to go on the spirit here. This is useful and belongs in a encyclopedia of this sort. SorryGuy 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this list is useful enough. Sheehan (Talk) 07:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep I think this is an awesome resource that should be nurtured, not blasted to hell. --Mboverload 08:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep But consider donating the list portion of the page to a site that is better suited for it - for example http://www.portablefreeware.com/. I think these is still a need to capture information about portable app's; particularly with the recent activity around the U3 specification etc.
- Weak keep, there's more to it than just external links, but the listings which are only external links should either be deleted or beefed up. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I appreciate the position that Wikipedia should not be a link repository, but in some cases (such as this) there are no reliable, up-to-date alternatives elsewhere on the Net that are as comprehensive. If there is room in Wikipedia for obscure comic book characters, then there should be room for a useful resource like this. I'd wager there are more people who need to get Firefox running off a USB drive than those who need to find out the name of all the Star Trek Voyager episodes. --cdjaco 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please note the difference between lists of internal links versus lists of external links. AlistairMcMillan 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken :), but given the utility of this list and the lack of alternatives on the Net I do not wish to change my vote. --cdjaco 17:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please note the difference between lists of internal links versus lists of external links. AlistairMcMillan 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - You guys who have sys-admin status on wikipedia are a bunch of asses. Go get a job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.67.127 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Very useful and relevant to people who actually want to access Wikipedia for information instead of just trying to delete articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.244.78 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- very strong keep, with all the stupid lists (IMHO) here on wikipedia, this is certainly one of the more useful for the general populace. Roodog2k 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- comment Hmmm... that came out wrong.... I just think that this is a universally useful lists, unlike many, many, many other lists. Roodog2k 21:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is extremely useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.4.203 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I use this list constantly. It is an amazing list, and hours of hard time have gone towards it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.187.35.222 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep I love this list, and found it to be a wonderfully useful resource when I need to find portable versions. It makes an excellent starting point for anyone searching for them. It might be nice as a category, but first a lot of work would need to be done to the individual pages that are linked to in order to make that work. Until that amount of work can be done and articles can be created for everything here that does not already have an article, then this page must stay in my opinion. It was even cool enough apparently for it to make the front page of Digg.comAyavaron 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep-enjoy the list. Very useful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.166.250.106 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Indefinite Keep - This is one of the many reasons that I go to wikipedia for over other places for portable applications. Not everyone can find these sites as reliable or simply descriptive as the entries here. Yes Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a depository of links but try saying that to every other wiki page here that has those properties. SignalMan17:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delete
Delete because Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links... AlistairMcMillan 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- With a tiny amount of work, the definition section would be a decent stub. I'm not quite Bold enough to do it while it's still being debated on this page.
- Weak Delete per WP:NOT a repository of links. It is a useful resource, but far better suited to another site. It is more appropriate on Wikipedia as a category --Hyperbole 04:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Useful, but does not comply with WP:NOT policy, which states that link pages are not allowed. I agree with moving the information to another site, and suggest providing a link out from the "Flash Drive" page to the final destination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.226.32.16 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Week delete Against the rules BUT a useful set of links. Stevelam01 15:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep the subject of the article. Mailer Diablo 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Matt Bixel
A puff piece on a non-notable porn star; no reason to include this article on Wikipedia. Harro5 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This guy seems to have pretty massive exposure per his IMDB page [1]. Hence, seems to qualify per our many, many articles on porn stars. -- JJay 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. Royboycrashfan 01:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. --Terence Ong 03:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per JJay. SorryGuy 07:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. Sheehan (Talk) 08:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if voice actors in relatively unknown Anime shows get wikipedia pages, porn stars do too. --ReptileLawyer 15:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it should be kept, but the article needs cleaning up
- Copyvio Seems to be largely copy-and-pasted from this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A non-notable entry. The fact that he is listed on IMDB, which other Wikipedians often refer to as a 'vanity site', does not make him notable.--Jslasher 00:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Deleted Make Love & redirected Make Love (song) to Human After All. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Make Love (song)
The article is a redudant of an already existing article (Make Love). However, I don't even know if the original is good enough to be considered encyclopedic. It was never a released single and I don't think anymore information can be provided about the song. I don't know if the original should also be considered for deletion. Douglasr007 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Human After All, & Make Love should prob go there too.Bridesmill 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant and redirect to Make Love. --Terence Ong 03:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge both this page and Make Love into Human After All and then Delete them both. Create a redirect from Make Love (song) but do not create any such redirect from Make Love. The Wikipedia entry for "Make love" should not be an obscure song. --Hyperbole 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn then create redirect to Make Love. --Arnzy (Talk) 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge What Hyperbole said, but perhaps we could make the "Make Love" article redirect to sexual intercourse or something.--CountCrazy007 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete them all. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Shot in the Arm
I am also nominating:
- In a Future Age
- When You Wake Up Feeling Old
- My Darling
- Candyfloss
- Summer Teeth
- ELT (song)
- Via Chicago
- How to Fight Loneliness--84.168.217.177 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pieholden Suite
- Nothing'severgonnastandinmyway(again)
- I'm Always in Love
- We're Just Friends
- She's a Jar
- Can't Stand It
- The Late Greats
- Less Than You Think
- I'm a Wheel
- Company in My Back
- Handshake Drugs
- Muzzle of Bees
- Spiders (Kidsmoke)
- Hell Is Chrome
- At Least That's What You Said
- Reservations
- Poor Places
- Pot kettle black
- I'm the Man Who Loves You
- Heavy Metal Drummer
- Jesus Etc.
- War On War (song)
- Radio Cure (song)
- I Am Trying To Break Your Heart
- Kamera
- Ashes Of American Flags
Delete - not every song by your favorite band is notable. Perhaps keep the singles, whichever those are, but not every single track by Wilco ever. Wickethewok 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 'em all. You should have tagged them though, even though it's a pain. NTK 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- heheh - I'm working on it :| Wickethewok 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom... and have fun tagging!--Isotope23 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep singles, and delete or possibly redirect the rest. bikeable (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not all of those are even songs, at least two are albums! Keep singles and albums, delete the rest if they have no substantial content, else merge and redirect to the albums. Also, Candyfloss should redirect to Cotton candy. Muzzle of Bees should redirect to Beard of bees. Reservations should redirect to Reservation. Kamera should redirect to Camera. I hate group nominations, and this is exactly why. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Which are albums? All I saw in the articles were "song by Wilco", etc. I don't think anyone would object to a Bold redirect on the articles Andrew Lenahan mentioned above.--Isotope23 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reply The original list included A Ghost Is Born and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. They were later removed by the nominator in this edit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, ah gotcha... thanks!--Isotope23 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reply The original list included A Ghost Is Born and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. They were later removed by the nominator in this edit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, Which are albums? All I saw in the articles were "song by Wilco", etc. I don't think anyone would object to a Bold redirect on the articles Andrew Lenahan mentioned above.--Isotope23 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all; let God sort 'em out. -AED 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the lot. Every single one of these "articles" is the same: foo is a song by the band Wilco, from their album bar. Note to author: if you can't be arsed to even tell us whether it was released as a single, don't be surprised when I can't be arsed to expand your fancruft for you. What you are saying with these articles is "I like Wilco enough to make a copy-and-paste article for every song but not to actually put any effort whatsoever into those articles". Seriously. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dylan 23:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all. Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. RasputinAXP c
23:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC) - Delete These are pretty much all one-sentence entries which provide little room for expansion. Cosign with RasputinAXP. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep singles, redirect the less notable songs. Royboycrashfan 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleteper nom--Zxcvbnm 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JzG. Redirects to various locations may be appropriate afterwords. Melchoir 02:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and reasons above. Funnybunny 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect all to the albums they are from. ...Scott5114 03:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, nn songs. --Terence Ong 03:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete per JzG, though redirects to the albums might work. Borderline speedy, as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep singles and redirect others, per Roy --Hyperbole 04:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a Wilco fan, I have a sticker on my car. But nuh-uh to all these. Keep per Royboycrashfan. T K E 04:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- As an aside, I'm kinda upset the user didn't include the songs from Being There T K E 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Oh but wait, they did. Someone with the time, could you look at the contributions for User:JeffTweedyIsGod? I'm off to bed, but I figure there's more out there.Wickethewok has notified the user, and they are civil about it. T K E 04:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep singles, redirect others, per Royboycrashfan et alia. Fishhead64 06:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Just zis Guy you know. We really do not need this sort of thing. SorryGuy 07:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I agree, but Wilco is a Grammy winning group; singles should be kept. No luck falling asleep...sighs. TeKE 07:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) <~ Hey, new sig!
- Speedy Delete the whole cacophonous lot of them; there is no assertion of notability on any. If the original author wants to assert that any particular track entry is notable -- winning a major award in its own right -- then that's different. RGTraynor 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, nn. Sheehan (Talk) 08:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. --Tone 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all as per NTK. -- Kjkolb 12:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the lot per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: According to AMG,[3] Outtasite (Outta Mind) is Wilco's only charting single, and (ironically enough) that one doesn't have an article. Don't know whether any others were released but didn't chart. -Colin Kimbrell 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all An article about their album is enough. Bige1977 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd like to inform all that the editor who created these was not familiar with WP policy at the time he created these. I believe he is in agreement with the deletion at this current time, although I don't claim to speak on his behalf. Wickethewok 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks Wick. Sorry for any trouble I've caused... I'll look around for something else to contribute with. JeffTweedyIsGod 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - We were all new once, so no worries. :) Wickethewok 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. - Rynne 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. --84.168.217.177 16:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep as long as they are actual songs, why not keep the pages. just expand them. Pooja.bhatt
- Ummm - an article on every song ever? Seems like a poor idea to me... Wickethewok 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Pooja - I recommend you check up on some WP policy/precedent before voting on AFD. Welcome to WP btw! Wickethewok 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)- Comment - note the above user is a big sockpuppeteer, as seen in other AFDs. Wickethewok 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT to Wickethewok Just because I just created an account does not mean that I do not know how Wikipedia works. Your pompous and arrogant attitude is noted and completely unappreciated. Back off. Pooja.bhatt
- 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 (e) 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Halloween: Awakening
An article on an unofficial video game someone made and hosts on Geocities. WP:NOT a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Harro5 01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not so many things this article is. Royboycrashfan 01:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--blue520 01:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reasons as the above. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Melchoir 02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Hyperbole 04:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 09:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 13:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cyanide and happiness (webcomic)
nn webcomic with 144 unique google hits. The article also is not POV. If we were to strip out the POV stuff, it would have no useful content. Where (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable.--blue520 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, no notability established. Royboycrashfan 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Given 287,000 hits total, the unique hits are a poor statistic; see Wikipedia:Search engine test for why. Of course, the article is pathetic and fails WP:WEB. Melchoir 02:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete per nom. Or just one that calls for interpretation; that some of those hits reference requests for site voting is illustrative. (By the bye, has anyone actually looked at this disgusting, lame, stickfigure "comic?" A recommendation: don't.) RGTraynor 15:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless expanded, but without prejudice of someone writing a real article. Kotepho 02:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability in its current incarnation. --Hyperbole 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NN and WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 08:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, nn webcomic, completely unsalvagable.--Jersey Devil 02:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I just found an article on the same subject at Cyanide and Happiness. Since the same arguments for Cyanide and happiness (webcomic) apply, I have afd'd it, with the discussion directed here. If there is no additional discussion about this second article on this page by the time this AfD is scheduled to conclude, I request an extension. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 01:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Myles Power
Page appears to have been created by a vandal. No such NHL player exists. Aottley 01:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, hoax/vandalism. Royboycrashfan 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. Speedy if part of a vandalism spree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above --Mason 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment-The original article actual describes Myles Power as a basketball player, but I can't find anything pertaining to anyone notable, and is still vandalism. --Mason 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax. No professional-level player of any sort would have so few Google hits. Melchoir 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merged and deleted (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reach (Planet)
Halo-cruft--Zxcvbnm 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 01:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Halo universe, along with Eridanus 2 and any other locations with stubs. Melchoir 01:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per Melchoir. SorryGuy 07:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- MERGE NO deletion! --Mboverload 08:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Halo universe. Alba 12:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Halo-cruft --ReptileLawyer 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge what precious little there is to merge as per above. --InShaneee 18:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If you look at the Halo Universe page, it's already there.
- Keep one of the few things in the halo universe that would deserve it's own article ⇒ SWATJester
Ready Aim Fire! 21:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paper Mario 2 recipes
Transwikied to Transwiki:Paper_Mario_2_recipes, not needed in Wikipedia.--Zxcvbnm 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Melchoir 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy A5. Royboycrashfan 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that requires a previous AfD with a transwiki result. Melchoir 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, duplicate. --Terence Ong 04:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Hyperbole 04:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. SorryGuy 07:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete wikibooks is the appropriate location for things like this (and video game characters). --ReptileLawyer 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ah, finally transwikied. Pagrashtak 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sandy_Tepfer
Vanity article created by a close relation--notice the username. rehpotsirhc 03:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - does not meet notability -- Francs2000
03:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC) - Delete - Reads like a memorial. Touching, but not notable. Fan1967 04:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 04:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Man, the longest nn-bio speedy deletion candidate I've seen yet. --Calton | Talk 04:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable obit. Fishhead64 06:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. That was interesting, I guess, but does not have a place here. SorryGuy 07:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. JIP | Talk 13:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Hopefully WikiMorial will be created and it can have a place there.--CountCrazy007 19:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Dan Quayle. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] William Figueroa
Best known for something that happen 13 years ago and was notable for a day, person not notable now Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn-bio, per nom. He only had 15 minutes of fame in 1992, what about now? Nothing about him?? --Terence Ong 04:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Would a redirect to Dan Quayle be pushing it a bit? I'm surprised we don't have an article about Dan Quayle's gaffes to redirect to... —Cuiviénen, Friday, 14 April 2006 @ 04:13 (UTC)
- Delete as the incident is covered in Dan Quayle already, and anyone searching for information on the incident would look up Quayle rather than Figueroa. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete although the tyke's name could be mentioned in Dan Quayle. Fishhead64 07:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Dan Quayle. --Hyperbole 07:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect -- anyone who looks for his name should be able to find information about the incident in the Quayle article. Night Gyr 08:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to Dan Quayle. (the merge part is effective already done). --Rob 09:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Starblind. -- Kjkolb 12:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. RasputinAXP c 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Danoe Quayle TeKE 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dan Quayle, all relevant info is already in that article. JoshuaZ 18:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I have put relevant information in Dan Quayle. Tyrenius 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- Under the GFDL, if we keep the content somewhere else, we have to keep the page around to preserve the edit history. Redirects are cheap, why delete? Night Gyr 00:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dan Quayle. Redirects are cheap. -Colin Kimbrell 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Hyperbole. SorryGuy 05:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kevin Roche, Sudbury
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurentian University Model Parliament and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUPSA Presidents.
WP:VAIN. rehpotsirhc 05:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a non-notable bio. The group is barely on the edge of probably-not notable, the leader of the group is certainly not notable for his role in it, for the purposes of the enycylopedia. I already speedied this once, but I don't like to do such things twiceMak (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is justifiable. I am currently in the process of using Wikipedia as a means of producing an image of Laurentian University as a highly credible intellectual institution. It is my theory that if students can see how their university is reflected on the internet, it will stimulate them to become more participatory. So, by putting up my own article is not for the purpose to stroke my own ego, but to allow for students at Laurentian to feel a sense of legitimacy; which I think a valid consideration. To further improve the image of Laurentian University on Wikipedia, I have taken the liberty of the creation of the article on our President, Dr. Judith Woodsworth; as well, I have created entries on Dr. Rand Dyck; and, I have also created an article to focus credibility towards Huntington University, one of Laurentian's federated colleges. All of this is in an effort to legitimise Laurentian University, and to show solidarity, and a sense of community. kroche14
- Delete - nn-bio, fails WP:BIO. If you want your classmates to see how their university is reflected on the net, might I suggest improving your college/university's article. Cheers. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Response to Lightdarkness: That is something I am currently in the process of completing, check Laurentian University's History. kroche14
- Delete per nom. Bige1977 05:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I stand by my "keep" on the AfD for Laurentian University Model Parliament, but cannot support this entry in any way. I concur with darkness. Fluit 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Compeletely and totally non-notable. This belongs on a user talk page. It's just some dude. Tomb Ride My Talk 06:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy If there is infact no user, then Delete. Ansell 06:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn, vanity. Fishhead64 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the article: I am well aware of the absurdity in this situation. But again, this is a process. Shift happens, and, I firmly hold the view that by continuing to feature different people from the Laurentian University community on Wikipedia, that a greater sense of community within the city of Sudbury will be created. kroche14
-
- Comment That's not the function of Wikipedia. Fishhead64 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment No, but incidentally it is the function of the world wide web. kroche14
-
- Comment ...and there are many places in the world wide web where this would be appropriate. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fan1967 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're unclear as to what Wikipedia is, Mr. Roche. It's not an indiscriminate blog or bulletin board, but a private encyclopedia with rules to assure that articles meet a minimum standard of notability; I strongly recommend you look at WP:BIO for those guidelines applicable to this situation, under which you not only fail to be notable, but do so in spectacular fashion. That being said, what Wikipedia is likewise not about is as a feelgood vehicle for residents of the city of Sudbury or your university. Speedy Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Response: Yes, you may be correct that Wikipedia is not "a feelgood vehicle for residents of the city of Sudbury or your university" but.... ideally it could be.kroche14
-
- Comment. I'd like to strengthen my vote for delete on this one if that was possible. As the author/subject of the article your seeming complete lack of understanding or respect (I'm not sure witch) for the basics listed in WP:NOT is not helping your case. Tomb Ride My Talk 16:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per the above, especially the comments by kroche14. Gwernol 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete con fuoco. WP:NOT anything original author thinks it is. Choose from the following: 1. a free webhost 2. an indiscriminate collection of links 3. a publisher of original thought 4. a soapbox. You can set up your own wiki on your own webhost if you'd like, kroche14. You can also head over to Wikicities and take a gander at their setups. RasputinAXP c 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable individual, as per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Sliggy 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per sliggy and suggest to the makers of the article that they go join myspace or some similar website. JoshuaZ 18:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Despite the vanity of this particular article, the quality of this author's work on Judith Woodsworth suggests to me that he would be valuable to Wikipedia as a contibutor on an ongoing basis. Fan1967 19:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's certainly a solid article about a notable subject, well-written and sourced, and I commend the person who penned it -- it's a word-for-word copyvio from the president's bio on the Laurentian University website. [4] That being said, I've also listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUPSA Presidents as being even more of a vanity article than Roche's original one; this isn't merely an article about himself, it's an article about the presidency of the political science club he holds. RGTraynor 20:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops. Silly me. I just assumed he had written it. Pretty blatant copy, too. Fan1967 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as vanity. Comment: In the spirit of not biting the newcomers, there could be a place of some of kroche14's material, just bear in mind that it will be cut down to verifiable encyclopedic content, not advertising or self-promotion. Peter Grey 20:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Certainly Judith Woodsworth is notable enough for an article, were one to be rewritten so as not to be a copyvio from the LU website. RGTraynor 08:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for "improving the image" of anything or to "legitimise" anything. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.1.107 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete, of course. Adam Bishop 04:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete The explanation given by the author of this article is sufficient reason alone to delete this per WP:NOT
Strong Delete Rand Dyck, Judith Woodsworth, and The Laurentian Model Parliament are wonderful articles (the parts of them which doesnt violate copyright), since they are all notable people and events, but the President elect of a Student Organization is not notable enought to warrent a article. This is simply a case of vanity and self promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.51.47.41 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete, clearly doesn't pass WP:BIO, part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Ivy Show
Delete - Show isn't in producton yet, the external link is to a one page website, looks like adcruft. "The Ivy Show" gets 120 hits on google, but even then, 5 are for wikipedia, some are for an equestrian event, and others still are for a stage show consisting of Ivy League comedians. So trying a search of "The Ivy Show" and Iacono (the "star" of the upcoming sitcom), yields a grand total of 6, all but one on wikipedia, the last on tools.wikimedia.de. In addition, the related articles (Steve paskay, Edward Meyer, Jill Kimmel, Ivy Iacono, Horrorween, Chuck Lamb, Antonio Gonzalez, Jr.), also made by the same editor(s) could probably also be candidates for deletion, but I'll let someone with more patience than me scroll through those and list them if they want. Nobunaga24 05:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Mboverload 08:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Danny Lilithborne 08:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fishhead64 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice, that should this show come out, it could be resubmitted ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Atomic Ducks,The Atomic Ducks
Does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC requirements Milkshake227 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Milkshake227 is just doing this to spite me. Atomic Duck!
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Unverifiable claims. Otherwise an OK article. -AED 07:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm highly skeptical of the claims re: Dr. Demento and "Weird Al" Yankovic - Googling "Atomic Ducks" doesn't even seem to turn up a mention of this band. --Hyperbole 07:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 09:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
this is a real band, they are local in Salt Lake City they do meet the WP:MUSIC requirements, * Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.
For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: They were on Radio from Hell (X96, in salt lake city) once a month radio from hell features a local band and they were featured!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ska-revival (talk • contribs)
- Delete that doesn't make them notable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find anything on this "band" anywhere else. If they made the top of Dr. Demento's list twice in a row, there'd be at least something out there about it. --UsaSatsui 02:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Adam 
(talk) 13:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Children of leviathan
- Delete. Another MySpace band that fails WP:MUSIC. AED 08:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I hate MySpace. Even though I have one =( --Mboverload 08:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete cosign with Mboverload ;) Danny Lilithborne 08:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn band, self promotion, vanity and lastly it fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 10:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7 Band and marked as such. Alba 12:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Userfied and speedy deleted A5 by User:Fang Aili. -- Saberwyn 23:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Luckyvietman
This is a not notable article Marco ✉ 08:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete - looks like misplaced user page --Nobunaga24 11:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy Alba 12:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then speedy A5 as repeat material. Alba 21:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy as well. Be bold. RasputinAXP c 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I userfied and deleted it. But I'm a new admin and don't know how to close AfDs. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete.
[edit] Sky point
Non notable musician, looks like a poorly written test page. Death Eater Dan 
(Muahaha) 08:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Deletion CSD A7.--blue520 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 10:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Odell Residence Hall, Lewis & Clark College
A student residence hall in a college is not inherently significant enough to merit its own Wikipedia article, and this article does not assert that Odell Residence Hall is particularly notable as residence halls go. See also the precedent North Hall. Delete Goobergunch|? 09:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. By overwhelming precedent, college residence halls are not inherently notable. Grandmasterka 10:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, domitries are nn. --Terence Ong 10:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Reshalls aren't inherently notable. RasputinAXP c 15:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per Grandmasterka.--Isotope23 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. SorryGuy 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or use as basis for an article on the UnI's residence halls. -- JJay 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious delete. Current content is an outstanding illustration of why dorm articles are a bad idea. There's no encyclopedic value here, and it would require major babysitting to keep the unverifiable junk out, like this kid here who wants to sound cool: In addition to being an excellent player at disc golf, Chris is also a superior beer-bong taker...setting what is assumed to be a Lewis & Clark College record with one and a half gulps.. Publish a dorm newspaper if you want, kids, but don't put this stuff in the encylopedia. Friday (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, res. is nn, article is cruft-magnet Deizio 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted, empty (just a paraphrase of the title), already on Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 16:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reniform
All there is is "shaped like a kidney", and Wiktionary has an entry already. Dangherous 10:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --RayaruB 12:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as dicdef already in Wiktionary; tagged it. RasputinAXP c 15:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already redirected and merged (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of people from Kerala
This article just contains list of a few people and doesnt make any sense. Kerala is a state in India and you simply cant put the names of all the people in an encyclopedia article!!
Shijaz 10:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This sort of thing is great for a category, not so great as a list because it is too general and unmaintainable. Grandmasterka 11:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I put [[ ]]'s round the names, and it turns out three already have articles. We have a List of people from Texas, so why not Kerala? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Terence Ong 11:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Could be useful, although a category would probably be better. --RayaruB 12:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Categorify. I myself created Category:People from Helsinki, this could be changed to a similar category. JIP | Talk 13:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Categorify per JIP. This is where we go into the song and dance of "categories already serve the purpose that lists don't." RasputinAXP c 15:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (Duplication) An article named List of famous Keralites already exists and the article in question (above) is just a small subset of this article.Shijaz 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge what content will take it with List of famous Keralites per Shijaz, delete the rest. I agree on the face of it that we have lists of notables from every damned political subdivision on the map. RGTraynor 16:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to List of famous Keralites, keep the redirect. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- DONE. Merged and Redirected. Some entries weren't there on the destination page, so I opened a discussion there asking someone to add details on those few people.
- Keep Good list. Hawkestone 06:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Adam (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Emily cuprate
Apart from lack of plausibility and citation, the chunk starting 'It was at this time that Emily began work on her obscure volume, the Emilina Cuprum' has just been lifted (with a name changes) from the Aleister Crowley article. Google gets nothing to support this, either. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, A7. This unreferenced article does not assert notability, in my view. Tagged. PJM 11:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7 this appears to be viral marketing for a band in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Alba 12:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- 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 User:Stifle. Kotepho 16:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spinebuster (band)
Article is about a band, but doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Possible vanity.
↪Lakes (Talk) 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, nn band with no assertions of notability. RasputinAXP c 15:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — FireFox • T [17:43, 14 April 2006]
[edit] User:McGill.phys.459
I used this page for personal notes (for my undergraduate thesis), planning to delete the account afterwards. I was unaware that accounts could not be deleted. Once this page is deleted, I will go about renaming or reassigning my Username.- McGill.phys.459 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as author requested deletion. RasputinAXP c 15:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment userpages go on WP:MFD but in this case {{db-author}} or such works just fine. Kotepho 15:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'd love to understand why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football_team should be an article but people think we should delete Reid Barton, Gabriel Carroll, Tiankai Liu, et al. Rewarding mediocrity?
Incidentally, Gabriel Carroll dominated ARML for the four years he was in high school. His junior year was the only year he came up short of first place -- incredibly because the 8th grader from his team turned in the correct answer to the tiebreaker question twice as fast as him. That 8th grader? Tiankai Liu. A year later they would both be taking home gold medals from the IMO. 128.103.11.166 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conservative Underground (2nd nomination)
Previously AfD'd here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Underground), which resulted in a No Consensus Keep. AfD seems to have degenerated into a bit of a political squabble. I renominating this because it is a forum that doesn't meet WP:WEB from everything I see.--Isotope23 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. The Alexa ranking is 45,155, which isn't horrible, but the article is POV and a quasi-attack page against Democratic Underground (although I grant you the site was explicitly created as an attack site). "It allows both liberals and conservatives to post, but insists that liberals back their arguments up with facts." And conservatives don't have to do so? At the very least the article needs a massive rewrite. RGTraynor 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep And Democratic underground isn't an attack site? At least conservative underground allows liberals to even post. Democratic underground deletes any posts contrary to their POV, and then bans the users., in the meantime the poster is mercilessly flamed by rabid liberals. It deserves notability as a response to Democratic Underground, which was notably big, and the Alexa ranking looks good to me. Suggest an article rewrite, but keep ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Article makes no claim of notability, no evidence that the site meeds WP:WEB. Pete.Hurd 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just because DU is a notable website does not mean every response to it is notable. It's google doesn't come up very well, only 3 relavant sites that I saw, itself, wiki article, and its merchandise site. Personally all of these Politics Underground sites need to get out of the Underground and Vote.--Tollwutig 16:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Forum is not notable.--RWR8189 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. 'Notable' and 'important' are not the same thing (we saw that with Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign, in which he was treated like a nobody off the street rather than who he was: the elected co-chair of the largest Congressional caucus and the man who derailed his own political career to stop a crooked corporate get-rich-quick scheme.) CU might not be 'notable', but it is important. Katzenjammer 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment' - The latter is seriously debatable at best (important how? to whom? to anyone other than a member?) and outside the purview of Wikipedia. The former is what matters here. RGTraynor 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep : sigh, another politically motivated deletion , related to the ones posted about "People For Change" and "Progressive Independent"... actually , a deletion was attempted on this one before , but it failed , now they're at it again. Amfortas 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, alexa rank isn't that bad but it isn't comparable to some of the top political forums that have established non-Afdable articles here. The forum also fails WP:WEB (unless one of the three notability critera per web can be met then I'll stick with delete vote but it notability can be established I'll change my vote).--Jersey Devil 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Still no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cashville Records
I seen Cashville Records website and looked at it clearly. I believe that it's possible for it to true, but there is no official word from Interscope Records. Interscope has the say in that matter. To me, personally, it looks like a fan site devoted to Young Buck. The B.G. is in talks with G-Unit, but not a signed member of the group or an artist established to any label other than Chopper City Records, his own established label. I doubt B.G. would be a part of any label after Cash Money cheated him out of money. Not saying G-Unit would, but it's more likely he wouldn't. LILVOKA.
- Improperly listed AFD by the same nom. Stole this rationale from the previous no consensus debate. Kotepho 17:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete. This should be clear. B.G. is not on G-Unit South, Lil' Scrappy is working with G-Unit but not apart of the label, and every other fan rumor is false. LILVOKA.
- Also stolen from there, added to the closed debate. Kotepho 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete B.G., Young Buck and Lil' Scrappy are notable rappers but this is probably a rumor/crystal ball. Just know basic American hip-hop music and can't stand 50-Cent. There is no mention of this so called "Cashville Records" label in major American music websites such as Billboard.com, almusic.com, and MTV.com. It is just briefly mentioned as "G-Unit South" in several MTV articles. [24] Saying that the record label will be coming soon and all those articles are dated in 2004. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep As per all my reasons from the previous AfD nomination. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per previous AfD result. We cannot go around discussing the same articles every several weeks just because somebody does not like the outcome. Henning Makholm 22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep what the hecks with renominating articles time after time after time anyhow? Jcuk 00:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Whoever put the G-Unit South made the inaccurate comment that rap artist B.G. is on this "supposed" label. I am not saying it's a crystal ball or saying it true. You perhaps think that G-Unit has expanded over with Cashville Records whenas there is no official site other than that squanter site with Google advertising among others. And besides how can Lil' Scrappy break ties with Warner Bros/Atlantic without comfirming. Show me proof and again I will recend my nomination. Right now I see a fansite not a webpage devote to G-Unit Records. Whoever made this page just copy the information from the website and posted it on the Wikipedia site! And beside it doesn't cite sources. #D-Tay- Fellow Tennessee rapper released mixtapes with Young Buck before Young Buck signed with G-Unit and has just linked a deal with G-Unit South. He is now preparing for his first big label debut. So therefore this is false. #B.G.- Former Cash Money rapper and Hot Boy has just signed to G-Unit South after weeks of speculation. So therefore this is false. B.G. is currently on Koch Records, but recently signed to Atlantic Records. #Lil' Scrappy- Former BME Records rapper, has finally signed with G-Unit South after tons of web rumors.” So therefore this is false. See the discussion as well as the Cashville Records.net website. Thanks. LILVOKA.
- Delete per WP:V. No source other than its own website. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to deletethe article. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny
The video described by this page is self-published original research, not from a reliable source, and serves only to promote the video and aggrandize the crank theories of the author, in violation of Wikipedia policies. Gnetwerker 17:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, from WP:V:
- Self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. -- Gnetwerker 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. -- Gnetwerker 17:07, 14 April 2006 //(UTC)
- Keep - WP:NOR applies to original research published on Wikipedia, not Wikipedia articles about original research. It's well-written and roughly NPOV, I see no reason to delete. P.S. -- I also cleaned up the formatting of this AfD per convention. rehpotsirhc 17:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and source. As it stands now it is WP:NOR as it is a description of the video not attributed to a reputable source. The subject is notable, generating 140,000 hits in Google ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)- Delete and merge onto Alex Jones (journalist) , the author. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
*Merge To Alex Jones, not substantially notable by itself. JoshuaZ 18:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to weak keep or merge per talk page. JoshuaZ 04:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no substantial citable sources. The blurb on Alex Jones already consists of as much as is appropriate or citable about this film. There was substantial debate and work after the last AfD, which resulted in the page you've seen. Weregerbil and Schizombie have both worked significantly on the article and it still lacks ANY citable sources.--Mmx1 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This article has already survived an afd, and the article has not changed substantially since that time. The film is notable, has had widespread distribution, returns many Google hits, and has an IMDB entry. Describing a publicly available film is not original research; the film is the primary source. --Hyperbole 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Untrue. Weregerbil added the enormous summary. He and Schizombie both made good faith efforts to find sources and found none. The last AfD resulted in no consensus with many editors wanting to see more sourcing. Well, at least four editors have tried and failed to find sources for this. --Mmx1 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- It looks to me like the overview was added by Mary Read while the previous AfD was still ongoing. It is perplexing to me how one could claim that there is inadequate sourcing for this documentary when it has 24,500 Google hits, of which 352 are unique; ratings on several review sits; and when it is available for public download. Are you really concerned about verifiability?? --Hyperbole 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The overview deleted (and readded) by Gnetwerker was originally added by Weregerbil after watching the film and noting the 9-11 content of the article at AfD time was only a small piece of the movie. Mary Read proofread most of it during the AfD. Tell me, what is there to say in this article other than to synopsize the movie? 352 ghits is notable these days? --Mmx1 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Once there has been even a single delete vote on an AfD (excluding the nom), it is ineligible for Speedy Keep. You should change your vote to Strong Keep instead. ⇒ SWATJester
-
-
-
-
- The overview deleted (and readded) by Gnetwerker was originally added by Weregerbil after watching the film and noting the 9-11 content of the article at AfD time was only a small piece of the movie. Mary Read proofread most of it during the AfD. Tell me, what is there to say in this article other than to synopsize the movie? 352 ghits is notable these days? --Mmx1 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- It looks to me like the overview was added by Mary Read while the previous AfD was still ongoing. It is perplexing to me how one could claim that there is inadequate sourcing for this documentary when it has 24,500 Google hits, of which 352 are unique; ratings on several review sits; and when it is available for public download. Are you really concerned about verifiability?? --Hyperbole 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment In general, IMDB is more useful as a sign of non-notability when a film is not there than a sign of notability when it is. The conditions to be on IMDB are very weak. JoshuaZ 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Film is higly notable in its own context, first film from the 9/11 truth movement and Alex most famous movie. Does not fullfill any criteria for deletion, specialy not bogus criteria as not finding sources, the entire movie is available for download, you need sources for what? With the same logic, lets delete The Lion King as unsourcable original research.--Striver 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is surely satisfied here; better data organization to have an article on the film, separate from the Alex Jones article. Kestenbaum 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOR. The author/producer is the poster. It's no different than if someone put their blog up. The medium used to express their opinion
isshouldn't be the the basis to determine inclusion.--Tbeatty 20:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC) - Delete Per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please review Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, your votes do not meet the criteria for speedy keep. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Invoking WP:NOR is preposterous. The criteria is whether this is a notable documentary or an insignificant self-published work. I'll change my vote if I or someone else comes up with some mainstream media references to this documentary. Gamaliel 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP doesn't have a guideline for notability of movies, which makes things difficult to decide what to do about them. IMDb's criteria for inclusion was mentioned above; it's at http://us.imdb.com/updates?update=title if anyone is curious. There are a couple of movies I had a devil of a time submitting to IMDb, though I'd bought one in a video store and the other from online after hearing about it (if I recall correctly) on Leno. Factual observations about a primary source that others can consult and make the same observation are AFAIK permissible. E.g. you don't need to cite a secondary or tertiary source to note that a given person is in a movie, or to quote it. Such sources are needed when the article starts getting deeper; what the meaning or ramification of things are, whether it's good or not, etc. See the part of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources that states "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." Шизомби 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per rehpotsirhc. If we apply the criterion of the nominator, then General relativity would also have to go! LambiamTalk 00:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment incorrect. General relativity has been written about in scholarly journals, making it notable. This video, however, has not. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me, can you read? If so, please try to exercise that capability before calling someone else incorrect. (1) The stated reason for nomination is "original research", and not "non-notable". (2) The nominator requires that the article does not describe something that is original research (instead of the article itself not being OR). LambiamTalk 01:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Is the interpretation of one editor on watching the video OR? It's a good question; and I'm not fully decided on the answer yet. --Mmx1 01:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- And what about the interpretation of one editor on reading an encyclopedia article? Although not Original Research (I hope), it may occasionally produce quite Original Results :) LambiamTalk 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's why you should never cite wiki itself in an article. That's pretty well established policy. --Mmx1 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I meant real encyclopedias like l'Encyclopédie. ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Große Brockhaus, or the Большая Советская Энциклопедия. LambiamTalk 08:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's why you should never cite wiki itself in an article. That's pretty well established policy. --Mmx1 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- And what about the interpretation of one editor on reading an encyclopedia article? Although not Original Research (I hope), it may occasionally produce quite Original Results :) LambiamTalk 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Is the interpretation of one editor on watching the video OR? It's a good question; and I'm not fully decided on the answer yet. --Mmx1 01:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- General Theory of Relativity would not be on Wikipedia if it had not been peer reviewed and especially if it had been posted by Einstein himself. It would have been an Original Research vanity posted by Einstein until it could be reviewed by an outside source and validated. In fact, I think that's how science treated it when it was originally published. It's certainly how Einstein treated Quantum Mechanics. This is a blog that was committed to film and posted by the author.--Tbeatty 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- General Theory of Relativity would also not be on Wikipedia if the criterion set forth by the nominator is literally applied. The point is not that General relativity should not be here, and not even that the nominated article should necessarily stay, but that there is something wrong with the given reason for nomination by itself, independent of the merits of any past, present, or future articles. It is a garbled rendering of WP:NOR, in which the text of the article is confused with the topic of the article, a confusion that is also common for WP:NPOV. LambiamTalk 09:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- KeepWhile I do not agree with what the movie has to say, I do not see anything wrong with this article. By the reasons given for deletion, we should technically also delete the Fahrenheit 9/11 page. It would be nice if there were some more of criticisms or reactions to the film though.--DCAnderson 02:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The movie is mentioned in the book Colloidal Silver : Making the Safest and Most Powerful Medicine on Earth for the Price of Water by Mark Metcalf (no, not that one) page 115. Eh. More notably, a college professor had named a course after the movie and was going to use Jones as material for it. Jon Sanders, "Academic Insanity at North Carolina Wesleylan" FrontPageMagazine.com, April 18, 2005. However, she died in November 2005: http://www.ncwc.edu/News/Archive/2005/0000112205-01.htm If that's not fuel for the conspiracy theories, I don't know what is! Шизомби 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) There was also a follow-up column, Jon Sanders, "Jihad Jane Attacks Frontpage Writer" FrontPageMagazine.com, May 10, 2005 Шизомби 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry, one more follow-up on the Jones/Professor/911 story from FPM, Mike Adams, "Jihad Jane and the Jews" FrontPageMagazine.com, April 5, 2005 Шизомби 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whether or not it is "fuel for the conpiracy theories" (and if that's the best you can do that must be a very weak flame) is irrelevant for separate notability. The FrontPage reference could be construed as going towards WP:N but the rest is useless. In any case, it still makes more sense to merge or delete it. A single mention does not make a movie notable. JoshuaZ 02:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't make anything of her death, I was thinking the tinfoil hat crowd would; just because I'm finding info on this movie doesn't mean I believe it. There was a brief mention of the movie in the NY Post archived here:[25]. There original link to the Post is linked from here[26] but is inactive. Шизомби 02:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) There's criticism of the movie at Free Republic[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1013296/posts] but I don't know if that's an article or a blog posting, and whether it merits inclusion. Шизомби 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whether or not it is "fuel for the conpiracy theories" (and if that's the best you can do that must be a very weak flame) is irrelevant for separate notability. The FrontPage reference could be construed as going towards WP:N but the rest is useless. In any case, it still makes more sense to merge or delete it. A single mention does not make a movie notable. JoshuaZ 02:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and merge any relevant material to Alex Jones. Per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable film, no balanced coverage in major media found. Article is an utter mess with little hope of being salvageable to something balanced. Weregerbil 11:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The previous AFD was closed 5 weeks ago. A relist this quickly is disrespectful of the previous discussion, especially since it received a reasonable number of comments. Give the article some time to evolve after a failed AFD, at least 3 months or so. At a bare minimum, the previous discussion and comments ought to be considered as part of the current discussion, since it was so very recent. (I would say delete for notability reasons otherwise). Derex 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- It was no consensus the last AfD so I fail to see how it's "disrespectful" considering the ambivalence that exists about this article. It might be disrespectful if the outcome were clearly delete or keep but that's not the case. Moreover, the article received a lot of attention and editing after the AfD, especially from User:Weregerbil. --Mmx1 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- It was not even remotely close to being a delete. And, there's not a chance in hell it would be deleted by an experienced admin now if the inputs of those prior commentors are weighed. So, it's disrespectful in the sense that it seeks to disregard that prior & quite recent input with very little time for the article to evolve since. This is pure AFD shopping. Derex 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, so far it is 55% to 45% in favor of delete or merge, so your idea of "not even remotely" is somewhat out of whack. -- Gnetwerker 05:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not by the standards of AFD it's not. I'll say it again, it was not even remotely close to deletion. And I personally think it ought to go, but those prior comments ought to count as well. Derex 05:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Alex Jones...has 906,000 googles, virtually all of them blog entries.--MONGO 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. What would Zac Moussaoui do, if he would be here right now...? - Darwinek 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Alex Jones--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- to here: 8 Delete, 8 Keep, 2 Merge -- Gnetwerker 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, possibly smerge to Alex Jones. Sandstein 10:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The previous afd is irrelevant. The movie is notable enough, I say keep it.--God Ω War 06:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this nn OR/propaganda film.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - verifiable. For great justice. 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as fifth repost of deleted material, and an nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GGFan
Delete non-notable fancruft page with no sources, so unverifiable. Has been created and speedied five times since September. On the talk page, the creator of the latest version claims it is more substantive (and has contested speedy and prod notices). Only claim to notability put forward so far is a link to a post on an external noticeboard claiming to be from GGFan. Gwernol 17:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Claiming to be from GGFan? Take a look at LionheartGGFans profile. Date joined: July 16th, 2005. Hey, The Alternative was created on July 16th, 2005! I gave you two valid sources, so you're wrong by saying there are no sources. So it is verifiable. I can provide more proof if you want BTW. It may have been created and speedied five times but this version isn't a life story or anything like that. It just gives all the good and bad details about a well known person in the Pokemon community, Gamefaqs and even in SDA (SpeedDemonsArchive).
[27] Game logs commented out Further proof supporting the link I sent —Preceding unsigned comment added by MayaBoy (talk • contribs)
- Delete I commented out the game logs because they don't add anything to the debate. I don't think you understand the guidelines for biography and verifiability. A very few gamers become famous in real life and get covered in newspaper or magazine articles. GGFan isn't one of those. He is not notable outside the Pokemon gamer community, and his notability within the community can not be independently verified through reliable sources. If there is a Pokemon wiki he maybe should be listed there but not in Wikipedia. Thatcher131 17:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete repost ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Command and Conquer origins
This page is all fan theory, speculation, and original research. It should be deleted. Jareand 17:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete most of this is fan speculation, there are no sources cited for the specualtive information, and what little facts are presented in the article are covered by a wide variety of other article that do a much better job of presenting the information. TomStar81 20:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all speculation, only a shred of accuracy ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, and BJAODN the first sentence. Free speech doesn't apply on Wikipedia, as Mr. Treason discovered. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Forza Motorsport Car List
This article is completely redundant - it featuers a list that can be found on the main page for Forza Motorsport. Bottesini 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - It is redundant. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Is redundant. --Several Times 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] High Impact Wrestling, Matt Essex, Chi (e-fed wrestler)
None notable e-wrestling federation, therefore a federation that doesn’t exist and is none notable. It has two extra pages of fantasy wrestlers that belong to this federation. Englishrose 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. My mind boggles. The concept of e-wrestling is weird enough by itself, but how can one be a professional e-wrestler? Henning Makholm 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really see what all the fuss is. "E-fedding",to me, is a hobby as interesting to some as MMORPGs are to others. I can understand that there was a wrestling federation with those initials but as far I can see, there is none. The federation itself seems quite unique on further inspection. Don't delete as this is just pure victimisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furyhumour (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Note. User's first edit. Englishrose 23:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Call me biased, but why is an e-federation which claims to be nothing more than an e-federation being accused of anything? It's fiction, correct - that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, is it really so different to this? And in response to the question of how one can be a, "professional e-wrestler;" the answer is simple. A fictional charcter who's profession is wrestling. What's not real about that? Nebzilla.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nebzilla (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The main reason isn't that it is fiction, the main reason is that it isn't notable, thus doesn't meet WP:N nor is it verifiable as there are no third party sources and thus it doesn't meet WP:V. Despite what you think, your e-fed is different to you example of Lord of the Rings as Lord of the Rings is a very popular and notable set of movies. Englishrose 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- When one first chooses to consider that which is notable, one should invariably take account of the facts and figures. www.hiwsuperstars.com is a veritable hive of activity. At this precise moment, there are 22 (13 members and 9 guests) people viewing the forums on which the fiction is written. Notably, 9 guests. Third parties. The naming of something as objectively notable poses a difficult question, but perhaps I can argue a favourable answer in Matt Essex's case. Quantitively, The Archives (which contain most things over six months old) are 30gb's in total. This I think you will agree is a notable collection of work.
- The main reason isn't that it is fiction, the main reason is that it isn't notable, thus doesn't meet WP:N nor is it verifiable as there are no third party sources and thus it doesn't meet WP:V. Despite what you think, your e-fed is different to you example of Lord of the Rings as Lord of the Rings is a very popular and notable set of movies. Englishrose 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
There are 11,593 threads viewable on the forums. Once again, I think it would be folly to denote such a figure as not being notable. There are 499 registered members to the forums. This does not include traffic to and from the website by non-members. There are non-members who in fact come to the forums on a weekly basis to read the wrestling shows put up by those who write them, so much so in fact that for a number of months HIW incorporated a ratings system into its News sub forum to keep track of how popular it in fact was.
Before this was removed, HIW scored a 7.1 rating on its last Pay Per View Event (Fictional, of course, and thus free to view). By the forum moderators calculations for rating events, the total score is found by taking the number of hits during the day of posting (bear in mind the shows are available, and actively viewed, for a number of days thereafter) and dividing it by 1000. That means 7,100 views of a single show in a single day. That again would have to be, by a person of sound mind, considered a notable achievement. This should also assuage your concern of there being no third-party sources. Those who are in no way actively involved in the production or competition aspects of the product presented view the product presented regardless.
HIW's name and purpose furthermore do not coincide with any other entries, or indeed possible entries, as High Impact Wrestling is an original and innovative RPG e-community of which there have been several notable spin-offs (including OTB -http://otb.booyah.net/efed- and XW2 -www.wrestlingdistrict.com/forums) over the five years it has been action. Chronologically, one would have to suggest five years of operation is a notable length of time for a non-profit organisation dedicated to encouraging the literary creativity of the wrestling fan.
To use the ongoing example of Lord Of The Rings, I believe the point Matt was trying to make is not that HIW is as popular per se as Lord Of The Rings, but rather that it is chiefly literary fantasy, enjoyed by all who read it. I might remind Englishrose that The Lord Of The Rings is not a popular series of films, rather a popular series of books, of which the films were spin-offs. Again, a philosophical point can be taken from this- one authors work is considered notable, while the work of hundreds of authors is not, viewed by literally thousands, is not. Notability I assume is not relative. Ergo, it is considered presently to equalise the balance. The number of viewings experienced by the average author for a single piece of work might be 26, bear in mind these pieces are approximately 1/200th of the length of one Lord Of The Rings book. Multiply 26 by 200 and one gets 5,200. Proportionately then, while not as popular by any means, one would still reach the conclusion that it is indeed notable.
Verily I am perplexed by the fervour with which the opposition petitions for this pages deletion. After all, philosophically at least, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia for the people, by the people. How would anyone hope to overcome ignorance of anything if the repositories of knowledge did not contain information that which one seeks. Gravity was once but an apple in Isaac Newton’s eye. Evolution, in Darwin’s. If he had been opposed to vigorously by those who disdain that which is unfamiliar to the point of requesting its removal from tomes of knowledge, scientific advancements would have been terribly stunted. Meanwhile, the creativity, innovation, advancement and achievement of generations both young and old as channelled through a specific medium (wrestling) is being shunned as being unworthy of representation herein. It seems in conclusion that the deletion of this page would move against the fundamental precepts upon which the site is based, merely because of a subjective sense of practicality.
Rob—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.51.144 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Despite your claimed activity and notability, it fails both the Alexa [28] and google test [29]. It also does not fall into any of the three criteria atWikipedia:Notability (websites). Englishrose 18:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Typing in "HIW e-fed" brings up HIW as the first and second search results on Google. Typing simply e-fed it is the seventh result. Typing in "High Impact Wrestling" (it is important for the protesting author to realise that HIW is infact an acronym) it is half way down page two. On Alexa: "HIW e-fed" brings up HIW as its first result. Simply "e-fed" the seventh result. Typing in "High Impact Wrestling" it is two thirds of the way down the second page. "HIWsuperstars" finds HIW the first result on both engines. Ergo, your search was the problem. It is important for the protesting author to note the needs of the community that use and view the product. There are literally thousands of e-feds on the net, and thus anyone using Google or Alexa would not search for the letters "HIW" they would search for "e-fed" and whereupon they searched for "e-fed" they would undoubtedly find HIW among the first results.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Furthermore I would like to add the following:
-
-
-
"This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)," Ergo, your point is contentious, as is your issue.
"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Indeed, ALL works published are independant of the site itself, save approximately 50% of the total news posts. All writers are independant of the site itself. There are over 30 active writers currently. hence, notable by this criterion.
"The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" Indeed, ALL works published are independant of the site itself, save approximately 50% of the total news posts. All writers are independant of the site itself. There are over 30 active writers currently. hence, notable by this criterion.
Rob—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.51.144 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I am bemused as to why this article has been chosen for deletion. It simply appears as if someone is maliciously and selfishly attempting to remove something that they have no feeling for. Others who look at this page will undoubtedly feel the same way as the main protagonist's arguments are extremely weak.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furyhumour (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete: This is ridiculous and as a former player of PBeM and PBM wrestling games this is just blatant self promotion. An e-Fed caters to a very specific cross section of people and is not notable by any means. Glad you spent a goo ddeal of tie on character history, but I'm not putting my Role Playing accolades into wikipedia. --NegroSuave 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Again, call me biased, but to be fair being a "former player" of anything doesn't justify what's essentially just an assumption. Regardless of what's apparently so "blatant;" the first of the three pages in question to be created was actually Matt Essex. Thus I feel inclined to ask how it is exactly that one promotes, not an efed, but an efed character? Hopefully your answer clarifies my point, because, you see, the idea, in essence, is to document the character's history and thus give a real-life example of an actual efedding character as well as how that character and any other efedding character's career can indeed develop. As for the page for HIW itself, as far as I'm aware, the same thing applies. It provides the example, documents the history, etc etc. Topping that, considering the uniqueness of the fed in itself, I'd say it's somewhat worthy of being classed as "of note." Nevertheless, anything anywhere can be regarded as not being "of note." I could easily say that as an example, The Lord Of The Rings doesn't quite appeal to everyone, because in all honesty, it doesn't. Sadly, in the case of the support, it's quite unfortunate that apparently as long as the deletion of a page is the initial outlook, no amount of convincing and/or opinion will suffice. Nebzilla.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nebzilla (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is self promotion because it is patently forgettable knowledge. Like most roleplaying genre's it is not really important to have an example of the game. Regardless of how popular a Dungeons and Dragons game gets, we do not need an article detailing a character and the time period. As popular as a Minds Eye Theatre game could be Wikipedia doesnt need a detailed article about the setting and the characters. It is simply not necessary. I would yield what unwritten guidelines have been established about other roleplaying games, It is not about any specific game it is all about the genre and maybe you can put your name on a list. Otherwise this is merely complete juvenile arrogance.
- And as for how it is self promotion. Basically this is the same thing as a "vanity pressing" of a book. While the book was indeed published and the like, its sole purpose is mental masturbation for the author. This is basically the same thing, Mental masturbation. Keep this out of Wikipedia and on a bio webpage where it belongs. If you want this to stand up to the test I am going to start requesting respectable secondary sources to back up all of these claims. NegroSuave 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- One would hasten of course to argue that masturbation, as a form of pleasurable physical exercise, and in this case of the mental variety, is the singular function of wikipedia. To exercise ones mind by broadening ones basis of knowledge through research. Ergo, such a phrase does not accurately describe the actions of the pages author as either reprehisible or reprimandable. As for a reputable secondary source, I had no clue Matt Essex had a page on wikipedia and was in no way involved in its construction, yet I have visited it and learned many useful things on it which I have gone on to use in writings of my own. This page has been a useful resource to all who have viewed it, and an encyclopaedia should want nothing more than that. Rob.
-
- The High Impact Wrestling e-federation does not have 5000 active members, this is true. It may not even have 5000 active viewers. These may be the guidelines, but is it too much to ask for the powers that be here to look at the world of e-fedding in context? It has been pointed out, I believe, on the e-fed page on Wikipedia itself also, that an e-fed typically lasts around a few months before disappearing into the void. As an e-fedder on and off for something like five years I think it is fair to say that the reason this is the case is that a lot of e-feds are poorly designed, poorly staffed and hardly dedicated institutions. I think that is also fair to argue that High Impact Wrestling is the opposite to these things as it maintains a stunningly professional etiquette resulting in, for a literate wrestling fan, outstandingly constructed shows.
The reason HIW deserves a Wikipedia page is because in a declining world of e-fedding it is, you must agree, a beacon. While it does not have 5000 members like a guideline might wish it did, it is a place that is worthy of note for the maybe hundreds of english-speaking e-fedders that exist and sift through the poor quality piles of feds. It is almost undeniably the only e-fed that can state it has been operating for five years and will not close down; that is has and is breeding writers through fair competition rarely seen in the e-fed world. In its context, High Impact Wrestling is the most notable of its breed.
I quote a colleague when I say if "E-wrestling itself deserves to have a Wikipedia page ... so does perhaps the most popular and detailed example of that hobby." Are the guidelines so tight to deny this logic?
Brendizzle 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I have speedied High Impact Wrestling as its only content was a template tag (CSD:A3). Stifle (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the other two. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regards content, more was intended to be added, but the editing process was halted by the pages proposal for the deletion. Only with this resolved can those involved with High Impact Wrestling elabourate as they had planned to do on the subject.
- Delete as per nomination. As an e-feder myself, I don't agree with adding e-wrestling articles (apart from e-wrestling itself) in what should be an encylopedia. It only leads to arguements over notability and self-promotion. --Oakster (Talk) 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- As an e-fedder, I should hope that you would be sympathetic to such a cause of this. After all, I presume that before you stated your objection you first viewed the forums, whereupon you as an e-fedder would certainly have had to realise that the overwhelming number of arguments already made in this particular cases defense are justification enough for the site to be granted representation herein. If the nomination to delete the pages is made purely on the basis of it causing "arguments" I would remind the protesting author that the discourses undertaken here are strictly discussions. I would further seek to remind the author that without such discussions, no protest could be made for those which rightfully deserve to be here. The absolutionist approach your nomination implies is most worrisome for a peer-edited encyclopaedia. Using the grounds of silencing those whose vase is legitimate for the sake of ease seems counterintuitive to the aims of the site.
Rob
- Delete. Irrelevant, poorly-written, ego-stroking nonsense. McPhail 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- irrelevant? to what? to whom? you? isn't that subjectivity? and isn't the point of making wikipedia a user-maintained community to facilitate many perspectives on things? (this being a perfect example) and as for poorly-written, you should really read the material in question before making sweeping statements like that. I assure you that in HIW, some of the writers are quite exceptional in character-driven dialogue. you may disagree, you don't like it, fine, we all understand that. however there are plenty of people who do. does it harm you (or in fact, any single person in the whole universe) to allow these pages to exist? if the answer is yes I question your mental stability, if the answer is no then what the bloody hell are we arguing about? this whole campaign for deletion just strikes me as utterly arbitrary, as many often say "we weren't hurting anyone" metaphysical 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- I take offense to poorly written. One would do well to actually read the arguments heretofore stated before questioning the quality of the writing with which the objectors state their side. Furthermore, it has not at any point been stated that the quality of writing on any page included on wikipedia must meet a certain 'verbose' criterion, though I am fairly sure that the current author could easily make such a bar. If I may draw your attention a fact earlier raised though not in the same context, it perplexes the current author how precisely one would go about stroking the ego of a fictional character. Equally, if only to match the pedantry of your objection, the page and its contents all make perfect sense. Any failure to percieve such sense would be surely the fault only of the protesting author. A quandry to state then that what is poorly written is beyond the protesting authors comprehension? Perhaps one should be more reserved with ones sweeping statements when first you decide to make them against a respectable and legitimate use of this page.
Rob
Personally, as an e-fedder, I feel this has a right to be here. And why? This is an encyclopedia, and this simply gives a clear view of what the word "conflict" is due to the commotion. It is a valuable information source. Also, to understand that Matt Essex is not real, people must have been reading to the bottom. This shows it has been made in a clear interesting manner and is a valuable information source to show the talents of e-fedders in a unique interesting way.
Ryan
- 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LUPSA Presidents
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurentian University Model Parliament, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Roche, Sudbury.
Non-notable officer's position for non-notable university club that does not even currently have its own article, possible fail under WP:VAIN. New user has created several related articles about Laurentian University and the club of which he's the current president and one about himself, several of which have been nominated for AfD. RGTraynor 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. -- JamesTeterenko 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as vanity: The notability of the club is weak, one officer of the club clearly does not qualify, unless the club president has ex officio some unique role. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Peter Grey 20:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tomb Ride My Talk 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 10:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per db-bio - pm_shef 04:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not a speedy, since it's not actually a bio article, it's an article about an office that someone might hold, but it's clearly a minor club. This material, while well-written, belongs on their own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mr. cranky
WP:WEB fail, possibly vanity page. rehpotsirhc 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 18:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as it is neither a vanity page, nor does it fail WP:WEB. Criteria 1 of WP:WEB is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Mr. Cranky has been written about by Vanity Fair, the New York Times, and The Guardian, among others. It's been around since at least 1999. dirtside 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here. I can only find the Guardian article, and it clearly qualifies as trivial coverage under WP:WEB. rehpotsirhc 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Some quick searches turned up other newspaper stories about Mr. Cranky, one of which is here. Unfortunately, most old newspaper stories require payment to access, so it's hard to get enough details to verify whether or not it's "nontrivial." Although I would submit that being written about by the New York Times is essentially nontrivial by definition. Here's a set of audio interviews with Mr. Cranky (real name Jason Katzman) in Wired, although it's from 2000 and the MP3 links are broken. There seem to be a lot of other random brief articles and mentions, as well (Google "Jason Katzman" "cranky"); enough that I think the quantity would help make up for whatever "triviality" they possess.
-
- What if the article was about Jason Katzman instead, or about Cranky-as-person rather than Cranky-as-website? There are plenty of far more trivial web-content-only articles on Wikipedia that have as much or less notability than Mr. Cranky (a number of webcomics, for example). (Forgive (and feel free to fix) my crappy indentation formatting here, this is my first deletion candidate article). dirtside 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Henning Makholm 22:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per dirtside and move to Mr. Cranky. A popular web site with large fan following (check the messages at the end of each movie review) and he's got a published book based on the site. GT 07:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The book is the deciding factor for me. -Colin Kimbrell 20:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - The book is not about the site, it's published by the author of the site--it doesn't help with WP:WEB or WP:NN. It is also worth noting that the book is ranked #475,736 in sales, below such notable classics as Fun With Cartoons: A complete Kit For Beginning Cartoonists
-
- I already knew about the book, thanks, and if you can get people to pay actual money for a printed copy of stuff you gave away for free on the web then I think that speaks pretty well for your notability. -Colin Kimbrell 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. I don't see verifiable evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete FrancisTyers 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Beth Sallay Effect
The article claims to describe the phenomenon of a named woman who added fradulent filmography about herself to various online sources and had it propagate between sites that copied off each other. It purports to make a point about the reliability of internet information, but ironically it is itself completely unsourced. {{unsourced}} tags have been removed from the articles more than once, and the authors have been unable or unwilling to provide respectable sources for the claims in the article, despite repeated requests (see also the talk page). Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Henning Makholm 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you google as "Elizabeth Sallay" instead of Beth you do find a large number of entries for an "uncredited" performer in a variety of TV and film projects. Looks like IMDB has her cleaned out (they have a listing for her but no credits) but all sorts of other sites have her as a performer in all kinds of things. Fan1967 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just how do you think such results counts as respectable sources for the central claims in the article: that she (a) did not actually perform in these projects, and (b) herself fradulently added her name to various sources? Without verifiable sources, there is no telling whether this article is not just an attempt to defame an real bit part actor. Henning Makholm 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not aware of anyone other than you claiming fraud... and that is a very serious legal charge. I'd be interested in your sources for the facts stated in the article being fraud if true. I've reread the article, and don't find any claim of fraud at all, much less as the central point. But the laws may be different in your country.
- Keep. There is legitimate question of whether or not it is wikipedia material (as I have said before), however the reasons for the deletion (the facts being wrong) are bogus. IMDB cleaned her out because the credits were fake. I personally have [As Henning is very well aware] given a talk on the effect here last year. (By the way , my page here gives the reason that I didn't write a page on the effect, commentary that has been there since last year) But I don't think that there is any reaonable doubt that it was a hoax. (And obviously IMDB didn't think there was doubt either either.) And there is the common sense point that the filming of several of the movies were in geographic different areas at the same time... :) And a look at the parts Henning alleges may be some specific "real bit part actor" clearly don't look like each other. Disclaimer: I've been following the project for years with great humor, and know her personally, so my opinion is biased. Nahaj 03:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The facts may or may not be bogus. The problem is that they seem to be unverifiable. Can you provide any citations or publications to support the story? The fact that you know her personally and can personally vouch for the story does not qualify as a reliable source. - Fan1967 04:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete per nom, and also if she's uncredited she's not verifiable nor notable ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Lexis/Nexis doesn't come up with anything, suggesting the phenomenon is possibly not notable and definitely not verifiable. Can you provide specific reliable independent coverage of the story? Otherwise delete. Thatcher131 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think many people might regard it as notable, if it could be verified. Certainly we've seen a lot of suspicious "uncredited" credits on aspiring actors. Maybe if she can document and publish her results, the story would get picked up, and this could legitimately be recreated. Looks like it fails both notability and verifiability right now. Fan1967 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. I am obviously in favor of keeping it but I think the topic needs more research. I would like to get a response from some of the sites, and including imdb, who have plagarized this info and see their view but I doubt they would be willing to do so. I plan on doing a write-up and possibly posting it on Wikipedia again. FYI, if there is any doubt that I actually did this, yes, my name is uncommon so there isn't another 'Elizabeth Sallay'; actress I am attempting to libel. It's not difficult to do this via imdb either as I have added some of my friends to various movie projects, also as 'uncredited' and their listing has yet to be pulled. BlueTrinity 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Does the use of first person here indicate that BlueTrinity is the "Beth Sallay" of the article? If so, the article fails WP:OR as well as of [[WP:V]. Wikipedia is not a publication forum for original research. Henning Makholm 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Even if Bluetrinity is not Beth Sallay, her plan violates policy on Original Research. The way to go about this is to get the story published somewhere else first (Wired, Slate, etc); then an editor, not necessarily you, could cite that here. Wikipedia is a compilation/summary of things published elsewhere, not a publisher of original content. Thatcher131 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Does the use of first person here indicate that BlueTrinity is the "Beth Sallay" of the article? If so, the article fails WP:OR as well as of [[WP:V]. Wikipedia is not a publication forum for original research. Henning Makholm 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I am obviously in favor of keeping it but I think the topic needs more research. I would like to get a response from some of the sites, and including imdb, who have plagarized this info and see their view but I doubt they would be willing to do so. I plan on doing a write-up and possibly posting it on Wikipedia again. FYI, if there is any doubt that I actually did this, yes, my name is uncommon so there isn't another 'Elizabeth Sallay'; actress I am attempting to libel. It's not difficult to do this via imdb either as I have added some of my friends to various movie projects, also as 'uncredited' and their listing has yet to be pulled. BlueTrinity 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete, nn, neologism. -Objectivist-C 03:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dr. Daniel Akin
Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not appropriate. Aufbauten 10:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete It is a basic summary of an American higher education institutions president. It has no advertisements mentioned, though he is a published author. I think this is appropriate entry, especially for those interested in the Southern Baptist Convention's educational Institutions. WJBA 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PROFTEST. If kept, move to Daniel Akin, as we don't include titles like Dr in article titles (see WP:MOS). Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Faith Works
Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
go to faithworksonline.com. They do have their own website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.152.129 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; non-notable; fails WP:CORP Bucketsofg 22:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pray Like This
Looks like a vanity article - an advert for a non notable book created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about Michael Zarlengo's recent books (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Articles on the non-notable author (Michael Zarlengo) and his two books have all been nominated for deletion. If the author's article survives, the two books should at least be merged into the main article. Engineer Bob 23:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tabernacle Gifts
Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established; no verification offered. Bucketsofg 22:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Articles on the non-notable author (Michael Zarlengo) and his two books have all been nominated for deletion. If the author's article survives, the two books should at least be merged into the main article. Engineer Bob 23:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] College of Biblical Studies
Looks like a vanity article - created by fairly new editors who have been going around creating articles about this person's recent books, the publishing company they have created, and their local church school (and adding links to those articles from more normal articles) - the articles look like adverts. Clinkophonist 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. As the article now stands, it is little more than advertisement. Bucketsofg 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep looking at google, seems to be a real educational facility, ergo an automatic keep. Jcuk 00:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Arbusto 08:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Snotgurgle
Contextless neologism, bordering on nonsense. Google shows 137 unique hits, without pinpointing this as fancruft relating to any particular fictional universe. Among the first hits is a username on some online forum, so this may be an attack page, but I doubt it. Article was tagged for speedy deletion, which admin downgraded to prod. Unsurprisingly, the article creator removed the prod without comment. Now taking here. Sigh. Henning Makholm 20:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, I think I've seen this at AfD before ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Neologism. nn. Bucketsofg 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Foxwood Strippers
On the practice of hiring strippers for bachelor parties at a particular casino. "Foxwood strippers" has only 7 (seven) unique Google hits, suggesting that this particular phenomenon is deeply non-notable. Was prodded as advertisement (for a particular stripper agency linked to in the article), but the creator (whose only logged contribtion is creating the article) removed the prod without comment. Delete nn/spam. Henning Makholm 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 23:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Accurizer 23:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Hawkestone 06:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was
delete. DS 21:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Magnolia League
I was going to try to clean this article up but, reading through, realized the entire article is conjecture based on what the article readily admits is a failed attempt by a handful of student councils and if I deleted the crystall-ballism, there would be nothing left of the article. MagnoliaLeague.com, from which most of this is based, is a sort of hypothetical fantasy site which loudly states it's under construction. This seems like a semi-vanity article for promoting the premise of the Magnolia League, and perhaps the website, indirectly. If there's ever any actual, official movement on this front it should come back, but as it stands.... Delete. JDoorjam Talk 20:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- I agree completely with the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.181.110 (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus on the article, remove entry from template. Kusma (討論) 01:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crisis of 2020
This article presents no information other than two writers have decided that there will be a Crisis of 2020 Generation. Useless non-notable speculation that has somehow made its way onto (and muddies up) the Generational table/template (e.g. see Lost Generation). Madman 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OR, Crystal ball etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete crystal ballism. Henning Makholm 21:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. BryanG 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)- Merge into Generations (book) or keep, I guess I should've looked closer at it than I did. My mistake. However, as I noted below, this should be removed from Template:Generations as potentially confusing to readers. BryanG 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this stub exists in the context of the article series covering Strauss and Howe's survey of historical generations, and is an extrapolation of the historical patterns they observe. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball doesn't seem to apply, as the article discusses a verifiable scholarly work, rather than being original research. The stub can be expanded by covering their arguments for this prediction.--Nectar 00:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball says "Expected future events should only be included if the event is . . . almost certain to take place." and the "2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics.".Madman 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the page is infomation about a theory. An odd one but a theory nonetheless. See Flat Earth. Kansaikiwi 13:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC).
- OK, I'll buy that, but since it's a theory, it should be removed from Template:Generations at least. It's potentially confusing for readers to put a theoretical generation in the same template as generations that definitely occurred. BryanG 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, no indications as to the notability of this theory. Remove from template, at any rate. Sandstein 10:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I maintain my keep vote but take out the template. Maybe the guys who made the theory need their own template. Kansaikiwi 15:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or at the very least remove from Generational table/template. How can you write an article about generational history and include someone's predictions for the future. Has this guy got a time machine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel bagshaw (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete from table only theories are good. I enjoyed reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Zafar (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 April 2006
- Me again, the nominator. If someone provides some content (other than the authors predict a Crisis in 2020, like what kind, etc etc), then I can see a Keep on the article, but I very much believe we need to Delete from the template/table. Thanks 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good.--Nectar 07:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Generations (book). Because all the articles in the American Generations series express the opinion of Strauss and Howe. It is an interesting opinion though, but it this way it is somewhat misleading, beacause one might not understand in the begining that these are theories of only two people. --212.72.201.199
- Delete or merge into Generations (book). Should not be its own article. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep article, delete from template seems to be the consensus. Alba 14:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was userfy. – Alphax τεχ 02:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Denny fyck
non notable vanity article, unverifiable claims to single notability claim, and totally unencylopedic. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would have speedied it, but since it's already here.. delete slowly. Friday (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Friday. Henning Makholm 21:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy to User:D fy 999. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material and article whose only content is links elsewhere (and a request not to delete). Stifle (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] P-Unit
Is a princeton university based parody group, does not meet WP:BAND or WP:BIO ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above.--Jslasher 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was
delete. DS 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Small penis humiliation
Appears to be a hoax. Mentions psychologists, but does not provide sources or links. Google search links to porn sites and link/meta crawlers, no encyclopedic info found. Prior AfD was no consensus. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Links are a paysite, a broken link, and a BBC report which discusses small penises but /not/ SPH. No professional refs; only pornsites. Porncruft. Bridesmill 22:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as likely hoax or wishful thinking. Bucketsofg 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Haw haw haw, very jocular. Delete. -- Hoary 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Hawkestone 06:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that this article is mortally compromised by a lack of good sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. References to publications on penile size per se do not do anything to support the article; the references must document the specific phenomenon it is claimed exists. If there are no reputable published sources, writing about the subject from personal experience, or based on postings on various blogs/websites/pornsites/other stuff that does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, violates the no original research policy. In simple terms, a subject on which there are no high quality publications cannot be written up in an encyclopedia. —Encephalon 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and all above. I didn't see any valid reasons for keeping in the last AFD so I think it should have been deleted then. Шизомби 23:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete as above Pete.Hurd 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
