Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] April 15
- 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 nn-bio. JDoorjam Talk 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dougg Cheal
No evidence of notability given in the article, none apparent via Google. Seems like a vanity page to me. Uucp 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. ~MDD4696 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Tbeatty 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 02:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. Kukini 05:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy 06:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article says that "In his academic career as a psychologist and criminologist ... He is often cited for his work". We have to assume good faith that this is true, and that it occurs in texts that are not online. I have placed a notability tag, so that these citations can be referenced. I think that this AfD should be stopped, and, if necessary, relisted, should the citations not be forthcoming. If they are, they article needs to be changed so that the academic work is the emphasis. I have left a note on User talk:Justin sane58, who started this article.Tyrenius 07:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- We have to assume good faith that this is true. No, actually we don't -- though perhaps you have a different "we" in mind when you use that word. So unless you're suggesting that Wikipedia has dumped its basic standards of verifiability and citation, there is no "we" (assuming, of course, you are not royalty, a newspaper editor, or have a tapeworm). --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This person is 20 years old. Are we to believe someone this young is both a psychologist and criminologist, especially with no sources listed? My good judgement says no, and the amateurish photo doesn't help much. This seems like a clear cut case of someone writing their own NN bio. VegaDark 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- That is my POV too, but it doesn't accord with:
- ===AfD etiquette===
- *Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers ... assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.
- *Notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised.
- This appears to be a new editor Justin sane58and I feel there should have been dialogue in the first instance (especially as the editor has said it is not a vanity article), at least to ask for verification of the claims. There is no dialogue on the article discussion page and no warning on the user talk page (until I put something there). I feel this is lacking in communication and etiquette, when the edit appears to have been made in good faith, even if lack of knowledge of guidelines, which one must expect from a new editor. I feel they deserve a better level of interaction with the existing community, rather than a slap in the face the first time they have a go at editing. Tyrenius 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Andy Saunders 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a resume service. george 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a resume service, nor MySpace. --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- non notable bio. The El Reyko 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This is pretty obviously a vanity page. He probably majored in criminology and psychology. In fact, he's probably still majoring in it; he's 20 years old. JDoorjam Talk 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be hoax ⇒ SWATJester
Ready Aim Fire! 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Extreme speedy delete, one Google hit which is not a Wikipedia page. WP:V supremely supercedes WP:AGF. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 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 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mac GUI
non notable site. Alexa ranking of 1,012,378. Rory096(block) 00:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not a site I know but the wikipedia page has had seven edits by seven different registered users. To me it suggests it has a notariaty - but a Google search is disappointing.Nogwa 01:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. That would be because it was tagged, probably by someone on New Pages Patrol, with a wikify tag and an importance tag, then disambig link repair came, which is coordinated by a Wikiproject that looks at disambigs and fixes anything that links there, no matter how minor an article, then David Fuchs expanded it a lot. --
Rory096(block) 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. That would be because it was tagged, probably by someone on New Pages Patrol, with a wikify tag and an importance tag, then disambig link repair came, which is coordinated by a Wikiproject that looks at disambigs and fixes anything that links there, no matter how minor an article, then David Fuchs expanded it a lot. --
- Delete Mac user, never heard of it. -Objectivist-C 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Obhectivist-C, I am begging you to please come up with another reason for deletion. "Never heard of it" is used by the "let's keep every article every written" crowd as an argument that AfD is a bad idea. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- If it were notable, I would likely have at least have heard the name before, given the close-knitness of the Mac community. Alexa agrees with the NN assessment. -Objectivist-C 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Obhectivist-C, I am begging you to please come up with another reason for deletion. "Never heard of it" is used by the "let's keep every article every written" crowd as an argument that AfD is a bad idea. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. Andy Saunders 12:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Another mac user, also never heard of it. Grandmasterka 17:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Andy Saunders. SorryGuy 17:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I've never heard of it either. Nortelrye 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 07:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fourfingers
Originally prodded as a non-notable card game, but was de-prodded by the chief contributor. I've never heard of it before, the only source is also non-notable, and it sounds like something a couple of kids thought up at lunchtime. Vote to delete. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up. Gwernol 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFT. dbtfztalk 03:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 09:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFT. Andy Saunders 12:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and WP:NFT. JIP | Talk 16:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per dbtfz. SorryGuy 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NFT ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete what dbtfz said. Nortelrye 22:48, 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 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peter Ong
No evidence of credible information Theccy 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless verifiable evidence of notability is provided. dbtfztalk 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V and it seems WP:BIO. SorryGuy 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of notability --Ed (Edgar181) 09:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete as per nom. May also want to consider deleting Michael Veroni, Stephen Dupree, and Kynan Pearson. Those articles were created by the same anon who created Peter Ong. Roodog2k 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not Terence Ong ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I think the original author has some work to do on this one before s/he puts it back up. Nortelrye 22:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:08, 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.
- 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 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AG Films
nn filmmaking group. Maybe if they won the awards. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, plus it's a copyvio from the website. TeKE 03:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MikeWazowski 07:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- ' Delete vanity page. No sources, not notable. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, promotional. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:09, 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to 69 sex position. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position
Unencyclopedic listcruft. De-{{prod}}ed, so here we are. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to 69 sex position as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pop culture references to the Dirty Sanchez. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, like List of songs about masturbation. Or merge. References to the number 69 are widespread and notable. But must have more references. Summer of '69, for example. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Tbeatty 02:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keepas cool list on a notable topic. dbtfztalk 03:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)- Delete. Is there something notable about a tv show saying "69" that we need to document every time it happens? Not even worth merging. GT 06:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Hawkestone 06:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per CambridgeBayWeather. SorryGuy 06:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above. VegaDark 08:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. RexNL 09:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per CambridgeBayWeather. Andy Saunders 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Madman 14:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per CambridgeBayWeather. Grandmasterka 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete What GT said. Fishhead64 19:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete listcruft ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Lists like this are research materials for articles, not articles. Most of the pop culture references in many articles should go - one or two or three should be singled out, rather than assembling unfocused lists. Bhoeble 22:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Per CambridgeWeather. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced original research, for another thing. "The song Ninety-Six Tears is a thinly veiled reference to 69." Says who? "In the beginning of the movie Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest is a cab driver. His cab number is 69, and very clearly displayed atop his vehicle." Er, they had to have some number. '69' is going come up 1% of time a two-digit number is used anywhere... Herostratus 05:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is the kind of list that wikipedia can excel at.--God Ω War 06:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to List of sophomoric sex jokes that aren't novel anymore after you've had sex once or twice. --Lockley 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per God of War. Carlossuarez46 20:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Power Rangers: Thunder Strike
This is OBVIOUS fancruft and Wikipedia is no place for that! A BLATANT attempt at trying to pass this fanmade project off as something noteworthy! The One and Only 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Power rangers: Thunder Strike has also been nominated. Andy Saunders 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is Fanmade but whats wrong with putting it on Wikipedia, People need to know its Power rangers fanmakes! Creator
- Delete Not notable. [4] CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete What's wrong with it is that it's fancruft. Look it up. Danny Lilithborne 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as mentioned above, it's fancruft. Sheehan (Talk) 02:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as fancruft. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- no evidence of notability. dbtfztalk 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete as fancruft. Andy Saunders 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable fancruft project. JIP | Talk 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I say it should stay. I mean... why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.202.29.55 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete fancruft ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Above fancruft points aside, according to the article, the first episode would be released on 2006-05-25. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — TKD::Talk 07:47, 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 (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of sex symbols
This page is just the opinions of the users editing it and cannot be verified in most cases. OrangutanCurse 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of objective criteria for inclusion. "A subjective list"? What? Wikipedia's an encyclopedia; it doesn't have a personal opinion on who is sexually attractive. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The idea behind the list is legitimate. Objective criteria can be given, e.g. "explicitly described as a sex symbol in major media". However, the current list is unverifiable. Very few references, and none linked with names. dbtfztalk 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per dbtfz, and cut down significantly until referenced. Probably should be renamed to something like List of people who have been cited as sex symbols for NPOV purposes, something along the lines of Films considered the worst ever. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete current version and start over using the format set out by Dbtfz - verifiable names only. I'm unconvinced this list is necessary as a category already exists. 23skidoo
- Delete inherently POV - and even if referenced, does the fact that one (or even three) journalist once called someone a 'sex symbol' make them one? Or would the references show that someone was widely regarded as such? That's impossible to reference. Give some examples in the article Sex symbols and leave it at that. -Doc ask? 12:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep because this list is very useful for me to locate celebrities in order to work on their articles. This list is popular and is good-natured. GilliamJF 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- ? So try the lists of actors/singers etc - no reason to keep this. --Doc ask? 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete However, if we're going to excise this, we should do so with similar subjectivities such as gay icon. Fishhead64 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep There's nothing objectionable in the existence of this list; I might not find lists wieldy or especially useful, but that's not to say that others don't. If people don't like what a page says don't read it again; or edit it within reasonable bounds. But don't launch deletion campaigns because one's subjective opinion disputes that of another over who or what is sexually attractive. With respect to referencing, that belongs appropriately in the articles on the subjects themselves where necessary, and not in this (or indeed another) list. The hyperlink is the reference (or has the way the Web works suddenly changed and no-one told me?) ajf 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep -will become an interesting list as wikipedia agesSpencerk 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no way this can be anything other than original research, or POV ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (or userfy). It'd still just be listcruft even if clear standards could be established, which they can't. --Trovatore 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I'm torn like an extra in a Godzilla film. I like the article on a personal level. But if I look at if it qualifies...I'm not so certain. It is entirely subjective. : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Doc and Trovatore. —Veyklevar 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a badly-defined list with completely subjective grounds for inclusion, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Stifle. Teke 07:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Listcruft. Delete, unless completely reworked as per dbtfz. - Mike Rosoft 21:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, however I feel this list should be severely cut down to only include the most famous sex symbols, instead of being cluttered with tons of also-rans. PatrickJ83 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This article needs clean-up, oh yes, but if specific criteria could be given this would be a useful article. SorryGuy 01:08, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Alternative (Internet Community)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Vanity article, request for review removed DonaldMick 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't the place for everyone to advertise their Internet forum. I'm sure The Alternative (Internet Community) would be quite unhappy if I went to their forum and posted irrelevant stuff about civil engineering projects in Minnesota. --Elkman - (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-noteworthy gubbins. - The One and Only 05:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Elkman. Harro5 05:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Elkman. SorryGuy 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Elkman. RexNL 10:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Elkman. Andy Saunders 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Tony Bruguier 18:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Vanity article my ass. This is a very well known place. I don't think GGFan would give a damn if you posted about civil engineering on there. This is a well known Pokemon community and needs to stay.
- Delete as per nom, and WP:WWIN, Soapboxing in particular. The article is also very poorly written. Justinhayabusa 20:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Elkman. Nortelrye 23:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is poorly written if English isn't your first language.
- 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, no consensus, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sexuality of Adolf Hitler
This article is pure speculation and none of the information present can be confirmed. I vote to Delete OSU80 04:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Both the original speculation and objections to that speculation are authoritative and well-documented in this article. It's well-balanced, and it's a topic of interest. Why not? Deco 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Speaking as the person who added four references to the first paragraph of the article (and meant to go back and work on the rest but... didn't), I'm curious as to what is meant by "none of the information present can be confirmed". Hitler's sexuality is, like most things surrounding Hitler, a subject of interest, and if we are able to discuss it objectively and with reference to reliable sources, I think we should. —Seqsea (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Even though this article needs work, it should be improved rather than being deleted. There has been a long standing interest and a number of inquiries into this aspect of Hitler's life by even mainstream historical biographers. The topic was even covered in my high school history classes in the late 60s. Normally I would want this type of thing covered in the main biography but that article is already rather long and has already spawned a Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler due, in part to space considerations. Ande B 06:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note This is the third AfD for this article since March 1. Article was retitled on March 24. Both AfDs were closed as No Consensus. AfDs were:
-
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation Opened March 1, closed March 7.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation (2nd Nomination) Opened March 9, closed March 17.
- I doubt the result is going to change. Fan1967 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Legitimate topic, seems to reference reliable sources. Could probably use some attention from an expert, though.Cheapestcostavoider 06:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Seqsea, the nomination is pretty incoherent in respect to that and also in that it's the third within a span of less than two months! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep good article, needs work -Doc ask? 12:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep has long been a subject of popular discussions and speculation, information seems to come referenced sources. I also have a problem (but not a big one) with it being the 3rd AfD in 2 months and latest 2 nominations coming from the same user (Mmeinhart is the old account of OSU80).--blue520 13:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, what's so bad about the article after all? It just needs some work and cleanup, its a good topic for an encyclopedia. --Terence Ong 14:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep speculation that is published is A OK. Kotepho 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if I was gonna vote it'd be to delete, but given the way this looks like going, it'd be pointless. However, who the hell cares about Hitlers sexuality, and what cant be said in his own article about it, that it needs a seperate article all to itself?! The guy was probably a repressed homosexual, or at least bisexual. Big deal. Jcuk 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep pending good references ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment en·cy·clo·pe·di·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-skl-pd-) n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. OSU80 22:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The discussion is real, and we can report the facts about the discussion of Hitler's sexuality, thus providing information for reference for those interesteed in the debate/controversy/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. (Keep, if it wasn't obvious.) —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:38 (UTC)
- The article isnt called The debate on Adolf Hitler's sexuality, it's called Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. OSU80 01:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The discussion is real, and we can report the facts about the discussion of Hitler's sexuality, thus providing information for reference for those interesteed in the debate/controversy/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. (Keep, if it wasn't obvious.) —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:38 (UTC)
- Merge with the Adolf Hitler article. Jesustrashcan 10:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's at 81 K- about twice as large as would be ideal. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is referenced and Adolf Hitler is notable enough to warrant subsidiary articles. It has long been a subject that has been discussed. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, as the article is now in better shape than last time, but it still needs more references. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It has non-original research related to it. History is not quite as verifiable process as the nom seems to think it is. We have to rely on people commenting. Keep also because it is an interesting topic that people may want to look at an encyclopedia to find information on. Ansell 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-encyclopedic. Could merge as a brief a paragraph in main bio. This certainly doesn't warrant its own article. Rklawton 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability of subject can hardly be questioned (pretty much every aspect of this man's life is likely to be notable). Article itself could do with touching up but is certainly not amongst the worst I've ever seen. Surprised to see that this page has been nominated on AfD 3 times in the past 6 weeks (presumably as an exercise in order to spur interested parties into working on the page?)- in terms of the subject matter at least, I don't see why this should be deleted, given the space constraints described above. Hidden Fuhrer: Debating the Enigma of Hitler's Sexuality should/could probably be merged into this page however. Badgerpatrol 02:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Badgerpatrol nailed it. The only reason I relisted this article for a third time was because I'd hate to see some 15 year old kid writing a paper about Adolf Hitler, after all I'm sure there are millions of them out there, only to include in his paper that Adolf Hitler was indeed a homosexual. Even a merge with the main page would be more constructive than having it's own page. There are missing citations all over the page. OSU80 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. My thoughts on this don't change: Unnverifiable pov fork. The topic is certainly borderline unencyclopedic, especially existing as its own article. If the content could be verified with reliable sources, I would suggest merging. This sets a very bad precedent for allowing every crackpot conspiracy bullshit to be treated with credulity. I'd like to think Wikipedia is better than this. -- Krash (Talk) 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Adolf Hitler's medical health, specifically the Mental health and sexual inclinations section MLA 08:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- 'Keep or Merge. anyway sounds good to me.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like a potentially good article, could do with a bit of a tidy and POV purge but it has some well referenced information in it. People must remember that just because a subject is sensitive does not instantly make it POV. But as I said, needs work. Maybe a peer review would be advantageous Localzuk (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Judging from the What links here, the content is badly integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia. This segregation may be the result of a lack of neutrality, or any POV in this article would develop because of its segregation. Not good either way. Femto 11:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Half the sentences seemed to have following them something like 'but this was unsubstantiated gossip.' The article seems pointless. Who cares about random accusations? MaxMangel 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hard to verify, POV speculation. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hard to verify, POV speculation. Read also [6] about Strong feminine-masochistic tendency of the German people and [7] note about Otto Strasser. And at the end think about OSS - The Psychology of War [8]. The sources are not reliable enough. --MaNeMeBasat 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do people not know what "no consensus" means? It means that the administrator can't take any action. Users can do whatever the heck they want, and so I merged the article. The fact that there was no consensus to delete is not a reason for unmerging. Gazpacho 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is OK to merge this, after discussion on the talk page, but only after this vote is concluded. We don't generally merge during a vote, as it prevents people seeing what the vote was really about. --Doc ask? 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm referring to my merge shortly after the second afd. It was reverted with no reason other than "no consensus". Gazpacho 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, just make sure every sentence is cited.—thames 16:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete/Move this information somewhere else - having a separate article for this gives a large emphasis on one small facet of one's life and is POV. This applies for all the others that have had a similar thing. It is not a large part of their life, unlike, eg, Dana International. Would it be acceptable if there was an article Drinking habits of Pope Benedict XVI? because he drinks wine during religious ceremonies?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- If there had been reputable sources speculating on the drinking habits of the Pope - then yes, that would be a valid article. But there aren't. There is however a verifiable debate on the sexuality of Hitler (not just 'was he gay?' but was he impotent, and how might we understand his sexual psychology). The 'facts' may be POV, but the fact that there is a debate can be verified and reported. Here's a review of a notable book on the subject [9] which was reviewed in Britians leading History journal History Today and caused them to put a fascinating picture of the Fuhrer in Lederhosen on its front cover [10] with the title 'Hitler's Secret'. --Doc ask? 08:30, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oliver's Software
Non-notable website. Vanity article by User:Oliversanders. -- RHaworth 07:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
AfD notice removed from the article by an anon. (And this AfD discussion removed from the log! Though that looks like a genuine edit conflict.) -- RHaworth 18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- strong delete Its not vanity, its an ADVERTISMENT! Roodog2k 21:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP is not for advertising. Nortelrye 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --blue520 05:58, 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.
- 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. Chick Bowen 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Education Credit Union of Georgia
Non-notable credit union - only 13 Google hits. [11] Also, I asked a Georgian editor and he said that he's never heard of it before. The guy who wrote this article, Education Credit Union of Georgia (talk · contribs), has been adding links to his website on Georgia-related article, trying to promote it. --Khoikhoi 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Geee wonder if this is self promotion...Delete as non notable spam. Mike (T C)
21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, banks tend to be notable. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like self promotion and spam. --ManiF 03:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
bainer (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Conceivably it may become notable with time. Melchoir 08:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mgekelly - Talk 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 09:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as it stands right now; would we be having this same discussion if it were a Canadian or an American credit union? Andy Saunders 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as nn. My forgetfulness. --Terence Ong 15:23, 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 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cajun Nights MUSH
NN online game. Only gets 323 google hits. As of this writing it is ranked #1045 over at The Mud Connector (TMC) and is listed as having a minimum of only 25-49 players online. Delete. --Hetar 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I've heard of it before, I know it used to be much bigger, it survived a previous deletion attempt, and the nom and other delete vote are both stemming out of an effort to delete another page (DarkMetal) whose proponents then cited this as evidence that such sites are generally included. --CBDunkerson 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Radagast83 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
bainer (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not popular as mud's go. See Dragonrealms or Gemstone IV for a notable MUD/MUSH ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:30, 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 Redirect --lightdarkness (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Area 17
article does not assert any notability, appears to be an advertisement for a PR firm, but can't figure out if it wants to be a disambig page either. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Visual cortex. The design agency doesn't appear to be really notable, no need for disambiguation page for that. -- Tangotango 08:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Tangotango, but this shouldn't be on AFD. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 15:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Latter-Day Mac
article gets only 159 google hits, non notable religious niche group. Not meeting WP:WEB etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment- for google link, click http://www.google.com/search?hs=tY0&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Latter day mac%22&btnG=Search ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- comment- for google link, click http://www.google.com/search?hs=tY0&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Latter day mac%22&btnG=Search ⇒ SWATJester
- Delete per nom. Nortelrye 23:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Article discusses an interesting attempt to target a niche market at the union of two growing phenomenon, namely the recent increase in attention and popularity of Apple computers and the rapid growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Both are cultural phenomenon occurring in our world today. Rsabey 13:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: nn spamvertisement. --Hetar 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Hetar, to refer to this article as "spamvertisement" is totally inappropriate and attaches a very unnecessary, emotion-driven label to the article. No one is being spammed. This isn't an email being sent out. What is the difference between this article and an article on "Third Day", a Christian Rock Band or an article for "Bibleman Jr.", a Christian kids's show, both of which are Wikipedia articles? "Ship Of Fools" is another example of an article about a niche religious topic. Swatjester - regarding your concern, in the short time between your initial comment and now (4 days) a Google search on "Latter-Day Mac" now garners 256 hits - a 61% increase in 4 days. At that rate, in four more days, this hits could be up over 400. Rsabey 13:23, 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 uh......no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of shock sites
This article is in need of deletion because it violates several of Wikipedia's policies. For one, it is simply a list of random shock sites that various people have compiled; in effect, an advertisement for shock sites. Wikipedia is a repository for notable information, not an indiscriminate linkfarm. If any of the sites mentioned in the article are notable, then individual articles can be created for them, but most of them would not likely merit an article.
Furthermore, in terms of censorship, while Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, that does not mean that any form of content is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. In fact, links to shock sites is something specifically mentioned against in What Wikipedia is not. Several users have pointed out that this only refers to placing links to shock sites in articles that are completely unrelated, and that placing links to shock sites in an article dedicated to them is naturally acceptable. However, that would mean that by creating an article dedicated to something that is normally prohibited, the prohibition can just be bypassed. An analogy would be a person disagreeing with Wikipedia's policy about having POV in articles, and creating an article on a subject and specifically noting that POV is allowed in the article as a loophole. Having a link to a specific shock site in the article for that site may fall into Wikipedia's category of appropriate usage, but creating an article that is an indiscriminate list of shock sites is really just a way to bypass Wikipedia's policy of inappropriate linkage.
It should be noted also that a Category:Shock sites already exists.
In addition, I would like to bring to light the interests of those whom have taken both sides of this issue. Though I cannot speak completely objectively, I find that many those who are for the deletion of this article to have the interests of Wikipedia in mind, while those who oppose the deletion often seem concerned primarily with their own interests. Examples of this may be seen in the many of the votes cast during deletion debates.
The following are three votes submitted during previous deletion nominations for this article that share my sentiment:
- Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information -- User:Thesquire 10:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) {2nd nomination)
- Delete — The large majority of the sites listed on this page would not stand on their own merits of notability. This page appears to be essentially a blow-by-blow list of web site links. I see nothing notable about this page. — User:RJHall 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (2nd nomination)
- Delete - This page is just a resource for those Internet trolls out there who want to scare/disgust other people with these shock sites. There is absolutely no need for this article to stay. I can't believe people are asking to keep this article; It's basically advertising vulgar photographs. I suppose anyone can make a shock site and use this article to "advertise" it. I strongly doubt anyone will come into the mishap of seeing these vulgar links if no one sees this page. I suppose the page that just defines a shock site is OK, but there is no need to post links to shock sites. People know what a shock site is, and they don't need to see an example. --User:Blackeye 12:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) {3rd nomination)
I would also like to mention that one of the most repeated reasons for the opposition of deletion has been about Wikipedia not being censored. There are two things wrong with this:
- Wikipedia, while not censored for the protection of minors, does have content guidlines, and, as I stated before, shock site links is something specifically mentioned against.
- Completely disregarding censorship for a moment, the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. As was stated before, it is just an indiscriminate collection of links and violates policies related to spam and advertisement/promotion. If the article had delt with inoffensive material, it would have been deleted promptly, yet because it deals with shock sites, many have opposed its deletion even though it merits it for fear that by supporting its deletion they might be participating in "censorship".
I will conclude by asking those who are considering casting a vote to think this matter through and to vote with Wikipedia taking precedence over their own interests. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- One other thing that I would like to mention that has merited this article's deletion is that most of the sites listed there made no attempt at verification (though this has been corrected since this nomination began). in other words, they had a discription listed beside their link of what content the link contained, but as most of the sites were said to contain just a single image, there was no way of determining whether or not the discriptions were accurate.
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (second nom)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (third nomination)
Please note that the nominator of this nomination has not participated in any of the previous nominations.
Comment. Why the rant against other users? It only serves to heat the atmosphere imho. I'd appreciate a rewrite of this, keeping to the arguments on the article alone. Furthermor, its confusing to people like me, who just wander in to vote on content rather than on who has chosen what side. The Minister of War (Peace) 13:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)- Concerns have (mostly) been remedied. The Minister of War (Peace) 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Like User: The Minister of War, I too have an issue with the formatting of this nomination. I would like to see links to the previous nominations clearly listed in one place, all in a row, at the top of the nomination, rather than this hodgepodge of votes quoted seemingly at random, with editorial comments, and no links to see context. If we are being asked to make a considered decision, give us the links to the older discussions, make a reasoned case for the deletion and let us weigh in with our opinions. As it is now, I don't have the time to try to decipher this mess. I won't be commenting until it's reorganised, I fear. Note, for the record, I've seen notes about this discussion, asking for people to weigh in, placed on OTHER WIKIs... (they were poorly formatted so it wasn't trivial to find... haha, too bad for the votestacking spammers I guess) ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I have crossed out this comment since the links to previous nominations have now been clearly listed. - Conrad Devonshire 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- And I have uncrossed it out as I feel it has valid points beyond asking for the links, especially the fact that there is votestacking requesting going on at other wikis. I will thank you not to cross out my comments, please, even if you feel you have addressed all of them. This "striking out comments by others" has been deprecated in AfD discussions for some time now. Please do not do it again to my, or others, comments, thank you. If you have concerns about that please feel free to discuss further on my talk page. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin. Please double-check all edits by Conrad Devonshire, such as this one, where he has removed keep votes with misleading edit summaries. 86.128.222.36 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The above edit has been crossed out because it is a false accusation made by a user known for vandalism [12] and for using sockpuppets to influence this nomination and prievious nominations. The only votes/comments that I have intentionally removed from this nomination are those cast by Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (this user's account which is currently blocked), and Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (a sockpuppet used by this user), as this user has cast votes under both accounts for the purpose of influencing the nomination. This user has repetitavely reinserted his illegitimate votes under 86.128.222.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) [13] after the other two accounts were blocked, and many of my edits, though intended for other purposes have involved the removal of those votes. If any of my edits have unintentionally resulted in the inappropriate removal of votes or comments due to carelessness or edit conflict, I apologise, and will try to be more careful. - Conrad Devonshire 16:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That diff seems to show nonvotes (remember, this is not a vote, it's a search for consensus) in previous discussions, not nonvotes in this one, doesn't it? If you or anyone has a diff where comments are being removed without good reason in THIS discussion I think bringing it forth would be a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment calling this advertisment is ridiculous. How can you advertise something that nobody willingly wants? And disregarding that, if it can be argued that these are advertisments, it could be argued far more easily that articles such as eBay are just giant adverts. Foolish Child 10:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The fact remains that it is giving unneccessary publicity to sites that do not merit articles. - Conrad Devonshire 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The version of the page that is currently protected has been significantly altered from the version that went up for deletion. Please keep this in mind when casting your vote. VegaDark 07:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Make recommendations below this line
- Keep Shock sites are a part of the internet, and it is only fair to give them a dedicated page. The reasoning "each site wouldn't stand in a page of it's own on wikipedia" is stupid, as you could say that about an album, for example. Why would you list the tracks of an album when you could write a page for each song? You wouldn't. That is why most songs don't have a wikipedia entry, only more notable ones.
- Keep Like whoever said above, just delete specific ones. If you delete the list you really should delete the individual entries for the important site as well or your whole purpose is defeated. --What does this do? 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete - I have explained myself above. - Conrad Devonshire 07:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Oh man, I'd nearly forgotten about this article. I'd like to think our seriousness about WP:V has improved beyond this level. There is exactly one item in this entire list that makes even an attempt at verification, and that's the main article of Goatse.cx, which has exactly one reliable source, and it's already linked from Shock site. I will understand if List of shock sites is kept on pure inertia, but I will then remove the unverifiable items from it, one by one, until there is just the one item left, and it can be merged to Shock site and this whole mess forgotten for good. Melchoir 08:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Excellent arguments for deletion made by User:Conrad Devonshire. Bwithh 08:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Mgekelly - Talk 08:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I believe in not helping publicize websites that do more harm than good. I believe in protection for minors no matter what Wikipedia says, and my votes and edits will reflect that. Actions that protect minors also tend to protect some adults. When the downside of such actions is just fewer entertainment websites, such actions should generally be taken. If the entertainment is commonly labled as "shock" then it's a no-brainer, and it's even more of a no-brainer when you see what the sites in question actually are.
- The Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't allow certain content whether it's legal and technically meets the wikipedian-created guidelines and whether it's voted out or not. The shock site article isn't even the worst. At the very least, articles for deletion should be monitored by that bunch of liberals and some should be deleted on the spot. -Barry- 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I was curious about this a few months ago and I found this article to be very informative and it was intereresting to read the types of things people come up with as shock sites. In addition, I have used this list to see if a suspect link someone has sent me is on there on more than one occasion as to avoid clicking on something I don't want to see. Furthermore, this was nominated for deletion only a week ago which resulted in speedy keep, and one might consider a nomination for deletion so soon after that a bad faith nom. I have not been involved in any debate about this prior to this nom and I consider myself a neutral 3rd party. VegaDark 08:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per WP:NOT and WP:RULES. talk to +MATIA 09:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- If community concensus results in keeping this article on three seperate occasions, and one does in fact think this breaks the rules of Wikipedia, then I can see no better time for WP:IAR to be considered. VegaDark 09:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- That guidline does not mean that rules can be oughtright broken. That's ridiculous. It simply means that if one feels too constrained by the rules he should just try to do the best he knows how without memorizing them. - Conrad Devonshire 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- My interpretation of the policy is that if a rule is getting in the way of making a better encyclopedia, ignore it. I feel that, if you believe it does break rules (which is disputed), then it does in fact fall in to this category. I would most likely argue the same for any article that has survived 3 AfD's that supposedly breaks rules. It shows the community wants it, and we shouldn't be deleting it because of a "rule" when so many people want it. VegaDark 19:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- That guidline does not mean that rules can be oughtright broken. That's ridiculous. It simply means that if one feels too constrained by the rules he should just try to do the best he knows how without memorizing them. - Conrad Devonshire 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- If community concensus results in keeping this article on three seperate occasions, and one does in fact think this breaks the rules of Wikipedia, then I can see no better time for WP:IAR to be considered. VegaDark 09:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete With Prejudice - why does this article keep getting remade? It wasn't worthy the last three times, this one isn't any different. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of this article having been deleted and remade. The article was created a year and a half ago according to page history, and the only AfD discussions the talk page links to are 3 keep outcomes. I didn't see any other AfD discussions linking to the page that weren't mentioned on the talk page, care to explain? VegaDark 09:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is actually one of Wikipedia's oldest articles, having been forked from shock site in 2002. Rhobite 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Possibly because it was never deleted? --
Rory096(block) 18:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I see no evidence of this article having been deleted and remade. The article was created a year and a half ago according to page history, and the only AfD discussions the talk page links to are 3 keep outcomes. I didn't see any other AfD discussions linking to the page that weren't mentioned on the talk page, care to explain? VegaDark 09:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Shock sites are a notable phenomenon of the internet. The article is not a mere list of external links, as it describes the sites and their history. David | Talk 09:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete or merge more "popular" examples into shock site. The article just seems like an effort at advertise the sites, or justify inclusion on wikipedia of non-notable websites. Deli nk 09:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I completely agree with the rationale of the nominator. RexNL 09:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Someone should go leave a message on the talk page of all people who have previously voted to keep this (as the nominator did for all people who previously voted to delete this) if we want an accurate representation of community consensus on this nom. VegaDark 10:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've left a message on the talk pages of all the users who voted keep on the last (third) vfd. Skinmeister 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep (note to sysops: this user is suspected of using the account User:Rennix to register multiple votes) of course. But these votes are irrelevant, as I have removed the vfd. This article was voted to be kept just seven days ago, and it is far too soon for another. Skinmeister 10:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've reverted his removal of the AfD tag, even though I agree with him this is far too soon for another Afd. I'll leave that for an admin to decide, however. VegaDark 10:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. (note to sysops: this user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Skinmeister used to register illegitimate votes) It's good for pissing off religious freaks for one thing! Rennix 10:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - My point proven. - Conrad Devonshire 10:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dbiv. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Firstly, this is not just a list of shock sites it shows their history. Secondly, shock sites are an internet phenomenon and should be kept. Thirdly, this has already been kept three times and it is getting silly by renominating it. Englishrose 10:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for my own benefit, as someone who wants to be able to read about these things in a neutral, enclopedic venue rather that visiting them first-hand. Kappa 11:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Several ads combined in one article are still ads, and they are not for notable companies or products. Hawkestone 11:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- They are not for any products, let alone notable ones. Any links to commercial sites have been removed, so your argument fails. Skinmeister 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Wrong. An article does not have to be about commercial products in order to be in violation of the "no promotions/advertisements" policy. - Conrad Devonshire 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- COMMENT - Please be aware that User:Skinmeister has been using his sockpuppet User:Rennix to influence the voting, and has since vandalised my own talk page. - Conrad Devonshire 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- He's not a sockpuppet, it's just morons like you keep thinking he is. And by vandalizing your page, you mean by doing the exact same thing you done to mine? Hypocrite. Skinmeister 11:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then I suppose its just a coinsidence that his only edits have been seconding your votes in deletion nominations for this article? And by me vandalising your talk page, do you mean me warning you for vandalism? - Conrad Devonshire 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The CheckUser going through now will prove this matter. And yes, that's what I mean, your blanking entire sections of articles, like you did with Goatse, is vandalism, yet you considered my warning a vandalism. 86.128.222.36 13:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then I suppose its just a coinsidence that his only edits have been seconding your votes in deletion nominations for this article? And by me vandalising your talk page, do you mean me warning you for vandalism? - Conrad Devonshire 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- He's not a sockpuppet, it's just morons like you keep thinking he is. And by vandalizing your page, you mean by doing the exact same thing you done to mine? Hypocrite. Skinmeister 11:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As per Dbiv and English Rose's comments, the page is more than a mere list of links (but could be combined into main Shock Sites article). Shock sites are an Internet phenomenon and should be recorded as such. Whilst I agree with the policy that pages in general shouldn't link to shock sites, links on this particular page are relevant to the content and context. Psychomusicianuk 11:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Users eighth edit The Minister of War (Peace) 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Some shock sites are notable and have spawned a following.
I'd rather have them arranged in one easy to monitor and well-organized list than have a bunch of poorly maintained stubs.ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 11:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, if sites like Goatse have whole articles of verifiable information on Wikipedia, then a list appears to be a useful reference. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: First, it's an eternal list with no internal mechanism for limitation. Second, it is inherently POV to have "List of (notable/significant) shock sites": without any objective criteria for inclusion, the include/exclude is POV. Third, there is no internal organization to the list -- chronological, in terms of hits, in terms of amount of animation. Fourth, the topic is ephemeral, and sites wink in and out of existence, so, by the time a site is listed, the list is already out of date. Fifth, it's not explained in any context -- it's just a list. "List of shoes in my closet" is also a list, and my shoes are very important to my feet. Without anything internal to the article to give the items listed a function, there is no internal logic. Geogre 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Normally I'm an inclusionist but this is basically just an advertisement of disgusting websites. Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong, speedy keep But clean-up as per George. The argument about this page being specifically prohibited by WP:NOT, it specifically says inappropriate links to shock sites. I can't see anywhere else where they would be more appropriate. Also, the interpretation of the voting is highly biased. There were plenty of votes for deletion that were primarily selfish (e.g. "This site is disgusting; there is enough crap on the web and wikipedia is meant to break away from that.") and plenty of selfless keep votes. This article is not an advertisment, if anything it deters people from visiting these sites. For every troll that uses this page as a reference there are about 50 innocent users who now avoid visiting any of these sites. There is also fact that every time this article is nominated for deletion the number of keep votes heavily outnumber those for delete. As for none of these sites meriting an article, Goatse.cx, Last Measure and HAI2U all already have their own articles. So in conclusion I think that this article should be kept, but cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foolish Child (talk • contribs) .
- First of all, most of the sites linked to on that page have just been random sites of no notablitiy, and therefore the links are inappropriate. And of 20+ sites listed there, only three have their own articles (and the article HAI2U is being considered for deletion). While the page may help people to know not to visit those sites, it would also provide a haven of sites for trolls to get their hands on and link people to. Most people who end up visiting those sites do so unintenionally due to a troll's meddling, correct? So knowing not to intenionally go to them would not do much good. Also, while I do admit that there was selfishness and selflessness on the parts of both the "keep" and "delete" voters (and showed an example of an unselfish "keep" vote in order to be balanced), the lack of consideration for Wikipedia has been far more apparent on the part of the "keep" voters than it has on the part of the "delete" voters. - Conrad Devonshire 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's quite a simple matter to block your browser from ever taking you to a site, so yes, it does cut down on the number of visitors to a site. One can visit this article and add all the sites contained to a "block-list". I know of several people who use this article in such a way. And besides, the vast majority of people ending up on these sites are due to entirely unmasked social engineering attempts in forums by users exploiting the new memebers' ignorance. And while I know that several of these sites are definately not notable, I did say this page required cleanup, which would involve deleting those. And sorry for not signing my comment ><. Foolish Child 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I know how that could be helpful, but it is not what Wikipedia articles are intended to be. There are other sites for that. - Conrad Devonshire 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Name me one. (BTW, I realise I've now stopped being relevant so I'll just STFU). Foolish Child 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I know how that could be helpful, but it is not what Wikipedia articles are intended to be. There are other sites for that. - Conrad Devonshire 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's quite a simple matter to block your browser from ever taking you to a site, so yes, it does cut down on the number of visitors to a site. One can visit this article and add all the sites contained to a "block-list". I know of several people who use this article in such a way. And besides, the vast majority of people ending up on these sites are due to entirely unmasked social engineering attempts in forums by users exploiting the new memebers' ignorance. And while I know that several of these sites are definately not notable, I did say this page required cleanup, which would involve deleting those. And sorry for not signing my comment ><. Foolish Child 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom.Also, this article is unsourced and seemingly will never be sourced. Just because a site contains shocking imagery does not make it a "shock site" so some proof of popularity is at least needed, but only the very most significant examples will have any verifiable information. The concept of shock sites is notable, maybe, but we have Shock site already. Mangojuice 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)- I now think Weak keep. My previous voice was partially out of frustration with certain editors of this page; I had been trying to encourage improvement of this article but was basically thwarted repeatedly, but I now think I'm starting to make some progress. I wouldn't mind seeing this article merge with Shock site but I also don't mind it having its own article, there's a reason for it as an article, but the article needs severe cleanup. Many of the sites in the list aren't even worth mentioning, and there's a total lack of sources. However, I think if we stick to reasonably established sites, they may be sourceable eventually. Mangojuice 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. *drew 12:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the last three keeps. Useful and encyclopaedic, and also a way to avoid them when they're linked by friends. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm either. - Conrad Devonshire 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- the notable sites in the list will be notable under other criteria and don't need to be put in a single clearinghouse. Andy Saunders 12:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per eloquent nomination. Far too indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I'm keeping this due to the fact that Wikipedia is NOT censored for minors, these sites ARE in fact notable, and because it's already been voted on and kept three previous times. There's a difference between an article being disgusting to a person and an article being blantantly useless. This is just going to be yet another moral battle, meaning a deletion would not be a neutral point of view. --Wizardman 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Only a few of the links on that page could be considered notable. - Conrad Devonshire 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT - 86.128.222.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been reinserting the votes cast by User:Skinmeister and his sockpuppet User:Rennix. Is most likely (and claims to be) that user's IP address. - Conrad Devonshire 13:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep for process reasons (wait a couple of months until you renominate again). Oh, and keep anyway: a notable phenomenon, and having a list of shock sites is useful so you know which links to avoid. Kusma (討論) 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. as per Englishrose/Stifle/Wizardman. Also links to shock sites are something specifically mentioned against in WP:NOT, except from an article directly concerning the content which would be the case with this article. --blue520 14:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why this article should be deleted, as it is just a host for random shock sites. - Conrad Devonshire 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nowhere does it say we can't have an article with links to shock sites. What it means is not to link shock sites in articles that have nothing to do with them, i.e. do not troll. Foolish Child 14:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. It includes several sites which are included in the Wiki and thus considered notable. I see no objection to maintaining a list of articles which wikipedia itself hosts. The Minister of War (Peace) 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)- Changed to delete. There is already a Category:Shock sites, making this article redundant. The Minister of War (Peace) 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is the place of the closing Admin to make judgements on the validity of comments (votes) put forward by users especially if there is suspected sockpuppetry. Users should not remove comments from deletion discussions, no matter if they believe they are cast by sockpuppets or not--blue520 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm not saying our votes shouldn't be discounted. In fact, I'm sure at least Rennix's will if it hasn't been proven he's not me by the time the vfd closes. What I'm saying it's up to an admin to decide that, not some POV-pushing kid. 86.128.222.36 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, but I am at least going to post warnings for admins here saying that you are suspected of sockpuppetry. - Conrad Devonshire 14:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm not saying our votes shouldn't be discounted. In fact, I'm sure at least Rennix's will if it hasn't been proven he's not me by the time the vfd closes. What I'm saying it's up to an admin to decide that, not some POV-pushing kid. 86.128.222.36 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Per nom--Zxcvbnm 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --rogerd 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but only with a major cleanup. Some of the sites aren't even worth mentioning, but some have almost become meme's(goatse, anyone?). If everyone in favor of deletion would just spend two minutes adding their $.02 on the talk page instead of throwing the good out with the bad, I'm sure the page could be a lot better. hobbie 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Goatse" is probably the only notable site mentioned there and it already has its own article. - Conrad Devonshire 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for good or for bad this is a phenomena and should have an article. 84.43.17.161 15:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing Admin: Users eighth edit The Minister of War (Peace) 15:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Like whoever said above, just delete specific ones. If you delete the list you really should delete the individual entries for the important site as well or your whole purpose is defeated. --What does this do? 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Users third edit The Minister of War (Peace) 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and merge with internet phenomena or Shock sites. Also, this list is very important. Without knowing which sites are shock sites how are people susposed to avoid them? Think about it. Don't be so quick to dismiss this list as something that's unimportant. --Machrider 15:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Users first edit The Minister of War (Peace) 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per nom jon 15:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- WTF? Foolish Child 15:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This was a useful article explaining origins sources and purpose of some otherwise puzzling images forming part of an emergent internet subtrend.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.40.13 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: users third edit The Minister of War (Peace) 16:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is not censored. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This really is a great and sound article. The information is accurate, and extremely notable. Hell, it lets you "preview" the horrors instead of having to see them for yourself. I don't know of any other sites I would really trust with giving a synopsis on shock sites. It even gives history on sites that seem to have unknown origin. Where else can you find that? brabblebrex 16:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong, speedy keep. Further calls for deletion of this article should be summarily closed by any admin. Let's give this a rest. Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Rhobite 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, WP:POINT. Adebeus 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Give this a rest. This page is fine.
- Note to closing admin. Users second edit The Minister of War (Peace) 16:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure about how this afd is supposed to violate WP:POINT (I could be persuaded though) but I am sure that I'm highly skeptical that discussion is an effective way of leading to wikipedia content policy changes. It seems to me that in such discussions, if even 10-20% of the users in a discussion is opposed to a rule reform, the rule reform doesnt happen. Wikipedia discussion seem to work largely on the inefficient principle of changing only when there is absolute or near-absolute consensus. Bwithh 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- This article has been around for four years, and it's survived AfD on three separate occasions, the last one a single week ago. Waiting a month or two to nominate it again wouldn't be the end of the world. Rhobite 16:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Speedy Keep Despite what the nom said, this article does not violate any policies. It is not merely a linkfarm, as there is information on the sites; the policy regarding links to shock sites that the nom cited has absolutely nothing to do with this; if this is an ad, then the article on [any article here] is an ad for [subject of said article]; it can be cleaned up; the sites that lack their own articles are lumped together here for that reason; any Delete votes with the argument "it's indecent, immoral etc" are irrelevant; it's been kept in three AfD noms, one of which occurred very recently; and it's ridiculous that the nom highly selectively presented examples of votes, being careful only to show the ones that supported his/her arguments, and didn't bother to show us the context. Yeltensic42 don't panic 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong speedy keep. These are notable sites, wikipedia is not censored, and this is a terrible-faith nomination, especially attacking users who want to keep this. This site has survived three AfDs. Let's please move on. Grandmasterka 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. While I am willing to assume good faith in the nomination, I think that these issues have been discussed and settled several times in the past, including a very recent AfD, and that nothing new has really been brought up. (I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the nominator "cherry-picking" some votes from the previous AfD as examples.) As a substantive matter, I believe the content to have encyclopedic value in showing examples of a notable Internet phenomenon that is followed by a large audience. As with any article, specific items of content that are inappropriate can (and will be) removed, and/or replaced by better content. I think this should be speedily closed as keep and further time, energy, and emotion be spared the participants in AfD. MCB 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dbiv. --
Rory096(block) 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Comment: To those who argue that the list is useful, being useful is not part of our content policies. We do not entertain cookbooks and FAQs, and WP:NOT an Internet directory. To those who are concerned with process: the third nomination was bungled by a throwaway account that never presented a coherent argument. User:Conrad Devonshire deserves a lot more respect. Melchoir 18:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — A series of paragraphs describing graphic images shown on the front page shock web sites is not encyclopedic IMO. If you removed the image descriptions this page would be virtually empty. There is no criteria determining what is a "major" shock site; who decided this? Have they had some type of political or economic impact? I can't tell from this page. Sorry, but I have to
vote to dumpfavor dumping this steaming pile. — RJH 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Keep. Shock sites are an important phenomenon. They are certainly notable, as they many represent some of the most vulgar material found anywhere--on the internet or otherwise. Deleting the list I do not think is in Wikipedia's spirit of exploration, as the sites actually should be studied and discussed. I would like to know why exactly they are created and how people can endure such poses. In other words, I am advocating expansion of the list to get to the bottom of it.--Primetime 19:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- We have shock site and articles on notable sites. We don't need an additional list-article to circumvent the extremely weak notability standards already in practice. I suggest starting ShockSiteWiki if you're eager to explore the issue. / Peter Isotalo 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- No thank you. Wikipedia is not censored, so I don't have to. Perhaps you could start your own censored wiki, though? But I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that we should discuss shock sites but not mention which ones exist?--Primetime 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- We have shock site and articles on notable sites. We don't need an additional list-article to circumvent the extremely weak notability standards already in practice. I suggest starting ShockSiteWiki if you're eager to explore the issue. / Peter Isotalo 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Provocative linkspam. / Peter Isotalo 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per being an explicit example in WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as I had voted in the 3rd nomination, relevant shock sites like goatse and tubgirl have their individual articles, we don't need links to unheard of shock sites that some unscrupulous editors' friends created. --Philo 19:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopaedic. Midgley 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The list is good adjunct research material to the article shock sites, providing the reader with an overview of what a shock site is (and what is considered shocking in our society) without having to actually look at the sites themselves. If I had no idea what these sites were, but wanted to know, this list tells me. Useful, but also needs a cleanup. Natgoo 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Links to disgusting and non notable pages. This should not be allowed anywhere on the internet, let alone an encyclopedia. As stated in the rules, when in doubt consider if this should appear in a normal encyclopedia. The answer is no. Especially with the links included, this goes far beyond not censoring for minors. Goyanks193 21:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whether you find something disgusting is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should stay, and if Wikipedia is not censored for minors, I fail to see how including the links makes a difference. Also, Wikipedia is not paper, and so can be more comprehensive than a general encyclopedia. I said delete above, but I'm also tempted to change that to keep in reaction to your logic. JoshuaZ 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. Some of the sites could go into Internet Phenomenon or Category: Shock sites. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant with Shock site and Category:Shock sites, and a magnet for utterly useless spam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The main argument that people seem to make against it is that they don't like the sites and find them distasteful. That isn't valid criteria for deletion. I am no fan of shock sites myself and that is the point of keeping something like this. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate...even about dark dirty things we don't like. IrishGuy 21:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Many of the delete votes argue that it is unencyclopedic, unverifiable, and non-notable. Our mission to educate is bounded by several content policies. Melchoir 21:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. However, I commend the nominator for making an excellent case for the deletion of the article. Shock sites are indeed a notable phenomena, in part because they permit the public exposition of those things which the public generally detests. Article could probably stand cleanup, but that's true of most articles. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Keep" This page is invaluable in directing wiki users towards actual examples of shock sites. All in favor of deletion should instead try to shut down the shock sites themselves... wiki should not be censored. Reid Sullivan 22:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 22:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Highly notable. Repeatedly VFDing an article because you just don't like it ought to be grounds for a ban. (This is, what, time #4? C'mon, kids. It's not as if there's a shortage of articles that really merit deletion.) jdb ❋ (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Imagine a physical encyclopedia with this kind of information and you'll get the point. I think the page of shock site suffices here. Zwaardmeester 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable, verifiable, and I'm really tired of seeing people continually submitting this for AfD. Nortelrye 23:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue with everyone who says the sites are notable. But verifiable?! Melchoir 23:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as notable and not in violation of any Wikipedia principles. Specifically, WP:NOT mentions shock sites in the context of (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) therefore implying that appropriate links are allowable. One would be hard pressed to argue that a page entitled "List of shock sites" would be an inappropriate place for such links. Finally, there is the process issue. Even if the last nomination was "bungled" as argued above, the previous ones were not, nor has anyone really come through with new rationale for deletion since it survived the last ones. At the very, very least, wait a few months between renominations. Turnstep 00:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree. If the nominator has reason to believe community beliefs have changed significantly since the last nomination, then it would not be very improper, in my opinion, to nominate the article for deletion again. However, a week is not long enough for the Wikipedia community to change radically. These nominations could be considered a form of harassment; a way of holding a sword of Damocles over editors heads, always trying to keep them in fear of having their contributions deleted (i.e., threatening them). If the article is nominated again in the near future, we should either (1) remove the notice immediately, or (2) ban the nom.--Primetime 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that upon closing, the closing admin should state that a renomination for AfD should not occur for 2-3 months & enforce this by speedy keeping any afd's of this article done in that time frame. (assuming this is kept or a no concensus, which looks like it is going towards). VegaDark 01:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and stop nominating it every day for deletion. This is not a list of "advertisements", don't be rediculous. - Abscissa 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If you continue trying to delete this and fail, this is too big a fish to fry. This list could be used by parents and people everywhere to keep their computers clean. I think meeting in the middle and removing the links is the most that should be done. If a person were to use google to find a list of shock sites, this page will come up first. I feel that this page is a good place to read in regards to shock prevention.Killerrobotdude 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless linkfarm. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Linuxerist L/T 02:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm really not seeing any policy changes or new arguments that have been introduced since the previous three AfDs which have all very clearly and overwhelmingly decided to keep the article. I'm very concerned that the original nomination was written in less than neutral manner to push a pov - I'm glad he corrected himself. Let it go. Kuru talk 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If the actual links to each site were to be removed, wouldn't that end the linkfarm objections? A simple Google search would allow someone to find the sites, and the article would exist just to inform and educate. hobbie 04:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Consider it done. Melchoir 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's a non-starter. I understand I'm a new visitor to the article, so I apologize for butting in all of a sudden. However, Google often directs visitors to mirrors and there is the possibility of not finding the site.--Primetime 06:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- See the talk page. Melchoir 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's a non-starter. I understand I'm a new visitor to the article, so I apologize for butting in all of a sudden. However, Google often directs visitors to mirrors and there is the possibility of not finding the site.--Primetime 06:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it rather defeat the purpose of a list of websites to not have any external links? Foolish Child 10:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- D Catherineyronwode 04:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's encyclopedic Funky Monkey (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this useful list. bbx 04:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this list is helpful and informative Yuckfoo 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)'
- strong keep for the last time Michaelritchie200 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - how many times do we have to go through this? This is really useless and inane, remove it and do something useful on wikipedia instead. Dyslexic agnostic 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - I'm usually a deletionist, but the nomination reads like the person clearly has never even visited the page in question, "Advertisement" my @$$. The site specifically lists a phenomenon connected with Internet Trolling and there is no reason to delete. It has saved a couple people embarassment. And besides, if Wikipedia is to be the "Sum of all human knowledge" it is rediculous to delete articles that are both useful and maintained. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 07:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Useful and maintained" are pointless descriptions of an article in these discussion. Anyone can maintain any type of article, and often does (Gundam-fancruft, anyone?) and "useful" can describe anything that isn't an outright lie. Neither have anything to do with being encyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 10:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia is a work that deals with all fields of knowledge. The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia meaning "general education". Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever, so saying that something isn't "encyclopedic" because it isn't relevant is a contradiction in itself.--Primetime 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Useful and maintained" are pointless descriptions of an article in these discussion. Anyone can maintain any type of article, and often does (Gundam-fancruft, anyone?) and "useful" can describe anything that isn't an outright lie. Neither have anything to do with being encyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 10:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Any article related to your website can be used for advertising. This article can be used to warn possible victims of these websites and entertain others. You are being a facist and have no business nominating this article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.74.209 (talk • contribs)
- Note. Users first and only edit. The Minister of War (Peace) 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Telling me what I have and don't have businees nominating for deletion sounds pretty fascist to me. - Conrad Devonshire 17:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This just encourages the creation of more shocksites and this page is just used to publicise them even further. Also this page is likely to be used to distribute the images to other persons.--Andeee 13:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Create a new article about shock sites in general at Shock sites.--Urthogie 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Just letting everyone know that the list of shock sites has increased since this nomination was started, which helps prove my point about it being just a linkfarm for shock sites. - Conrad Devonshire 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The excessive comments by the nominator, challenging every keep comment, inappropriately striking out comments questioning his approach or methodology, hectoring participants to think of the encyclopedia (I would reply that I always do, in every AfD I participate in, and I find it personally affronting to be so hectored), etc, suggest the nominator has more personally at stake than may be prudent. That may not be good. But what is more important is that despite my personal distaste for this topic, it is encyclopedic. The growth of the list during the debate is a factor in favour of keeping it, in my view, as it demonstrates notability of the topic. With considerable personal regret, I must now comment Keep. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have not crossed out any comments because they "questioned my approach or methodology". The only comments that I have crossed out were a criticism of my introduction which I thought I addressed, and a false and inflamatory accusation made by a user who has vandalised my talk page, tried twice to remove the AfD tag from this article even after being warned for it, and used sockpuppets to try to register multiple votes in this and previous nominations among other things. As for my personally addressing many comments, I admit that I probably have gone overboard on that and will try to refrain from doing it so frequently from now on. I have nothing "personal" at stake in this debate, but I believe that articles like this are detremental to the quality of Wikipedia and that the only reason that this article has been kept for as long as it has is because the argument for its deletion has been made to seem all about censorship, even though there are other strong reasons for its deletion. - Conrad Devonshire 18:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Repeating for emphasis: "I will thank you not to cross out my comments, please, even if you feel you have addressed all of them." I withdraw any speculation about why you actually chose to strike my comment, with apologies, while choosing to nevertheless point out that you give the appearance of having stricken my entire comment (not just the part about previous noms) because I questioned your approach, which I for the record still do. I'll reiterate in case it is not clear: Unless you're the closing admin, (and nowadays not even then) it is my view that it is terrifically bad form to strike anyone else's comment or substantially change by refactoring or other means what they say. If you want established wikipedians to take you seriously, it is my view that you should strongly consider forthrightly apologising for it, and not doing it ever again. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have not crossed out any comments because they "questioned my approach or methodology". The only comments that I have crossed out were a criticism of my introduction which I thought I addressed, and a false and inflamatory accusation made by a user who has vandalised my talk page, tried twice to remove the AfD tag from this article even after being warned for it, and used sockpuppets to try to register multiple votes in this and previous nominations among other things. As for my personally addressing many comments, I admit that I probably have gone overboard on that and will try to refrain from doing it so frequently from now on. I have nothing "personal" at stake in this debate, but I believe that articles like this are detremental to the quality of Wikipedia and that the only reason that this article has been kept for as long as it has is because the argument for its deletion has been made to seem all about censorship, even though there are other strong reasons for its deletion. - Conrad Devonshire 18:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We can only have a list of shock sites if a criteria is drawn up for them first or if the list comes from a recognized body.--God Ω War 06:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think this article should be kept, but any sites that aren't notable should be removed. Wikipedia should not become a directory. --Jason (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Informative and useful, not only to the trolls, but to their victims who would use such a list to prevent attacks. Jesustrashcan 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no other way to find out what exactly is on one of these sites. Like many of the other Keep voters, I've actually gotten some use out of this article. It's information on a notable internet phenomenon. --Breathstealer 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Four nominations, and it is up for a vote AGAIN. I will say what I said at the last vote... Wikipedia is not something that bends to the will of the squeamish. Sure, you don't like shock sites, understandable. BUT that doesn't mean that shock sites don't exist. Nominator mentioned the Wikipedia policy, and it says delete shock sites immediately EXCEPT FOR PAGES WHICH DEAL WITH IT SPECIFICALLY. I believe that "List of shock sites" deal SPECIFICALLY with it, so obviously the nominator's "Wiki guideline" argument flies right out the window. Nominator also villifies anyone who votes for keep. Surely, this is abuse? "You vote delete FOR THE GOOD OF WIKIPEDIA. IF YOU VOTE KEEP YOU ARE TRASH WHO DOES NOTHING BUT CONTRIBUTE TO MORAL DECAY." This is an unacceptable attitude. I, and hopefully others, will not be pressured by this attitude of "My way or the highway". I will say this again. You may not like it, but this article does serve its purpose (warning others of shock sites, giving example of what a shock site is, a chronicle of internet history). Despite whatever your pretensions are, this article should, nay, needs to stay. Hobbeslover 19:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - weather you like it or not this is a part of internet culture/history. And stop trying to delete this page! --Joe dude 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The coverage of shock sites is not what is objectionable, it's the notability of such sites being listed here. There is no problem with having an article on shock sites in general, or certain well-known shock sites getting articles. However, what is not needed is a list containing every random shock site people can think of and throw up onto a list. Also, Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories. WarpstarRider 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- speedy keep I don't see why this article needs to be deleted -- it's a useful article, and it kept me from going to lemonparty.org (thank you!). I get a strong feeling that most of the deletion suggestions are based on users finding the content objectionable, which should have no relevance as per wikipedia policy. Assuming this article is not deleted, it should also be protected against deletion -- it seems like it's constantly being put into deletion, and constantly pulled out.24.250.119.145 23:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - It has useful information about a topic that is definitly important on the internet. Its not a nice topic, but it sure is relevant. Jamesinclair 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. I see no reason that this article cannot simply be merged into shock site. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. The few sites on the that are either notable or best illsutrate the genre shoulde be covered at shock site. The list itself needs to go. -- DS1953 talk 00:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Per most others. It's also not cricket to renominate an article for deletion only 6 days after the previous discussion closed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks to me like Conrad has an agenda here. Note the extremely lengthy intro, and of course, his stupid idea that the people voting to keep are doing so only for moral decay. In a time when our crime rate is down, when same-sex marriage has REDUCED sexual promiscuity, and basically people are beginning to realize that true morals (don't kill, don't steal, don't harm others) are more important than stupid shit like laughing at shock sites, it's sad that people like Conrad just don't get it. Nice way to try to be a hero, Conrad - point at some minor "sin" and attach yourself to it to hide from your own personal problems (yes, I checked out your user page). (yes, I did delete Conrad's lengthy intro, but it got restored. That was probably not a good idea on my part, but this page does not belong to him) --69.248.236.62 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - you make a very interesting point here, and I would strongly reccomend that those who have not done so yet read Conrad's user page to conclude for themselves whether he has "an agenda." - Abscissa 06:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Is it the fact that he plays the piano, or that he plays computer games such as Rise of Nations which gives him away? Lets not sling mud here, and more so, lets not sling mud on the basis of stereotypes. WP:AGF and WP:NPA and all that. The Minister of War (Peace) 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Addressing User:69.248.236.62, I would appreciate it if you would not attack me simply because you disagree with my belefs and stop trying to infer my reasons for nominating this article for deletion. You claim that same-sex marriage has reduced sexual promiscuity based on the fact that same-sex couples have been shown to last longer on average than married couples, however this does not take into account the number of additional partners that the two members each have during their relationship. And also what morals are "true" and what morals are "stupid shit" are entirely your opinions. It is my belief that things that we tend to deem "smaller", such as pornography lead to the "greater" wrongs, such as murder, and therefore if the "smaller" wrongs were done away with, the greater wrongs would consequently disappear. As for my introduction, I wrote it to try to point out the problems that the article had and avoid making the nomination seem strictly about explicit content. Just because you disagree with it does not give you the right to remove it. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not making a personal attack. I also don't care that he's Christian, or 17 -- nor do I think most people. However, many other comments have made reference to his user page. I do believe it's relevant. -Abscissa 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Is it the fact that he plays the piano, or that he plays computer games such as Rise of Nations which gives him away? Lets not sling mud here, and more so, lets not sling mud on the basis of stereotypes. WP:AGF and WP:NPA and all that. The Minister of War (Peace) 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - you make a very interesting point here, and I would strongly reccomend that those who have not done so yet read Conrad's user page to conclude for themselves whether he has "an agenda." - Abscissa 06:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I learned something from this article. KWH 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep an established article that has survived three previous nominations. Worse an editor with an agenda nominated this for this fourth AfD and is making heavy handed edits that will not be helpful fir the closing admin. David D. (Talk) 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Conrad was kind enough to remove several comments which I found offensive. I for one, am thankful he did. The Minister of War (Peace) 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- That diff seems to show that I have removed keep votes Again, I apologise if any keep votes have been deleted in any of my edits due to edit conflict or what. I have not intentionally deleted any keep votes other than those which Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) submitted under the accounts Skinmeister and Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Conrad was kind enough to remove several comments which I found offensive. I for one, am thankful he did. The Minister of War (Peace) 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speddy Delete I cannot believe that this list of links to troll porn has been even been given serious consideration by Wikipedia, when other, better articles have been deleted. Here is a list to links that, not only will get Wikipedians fired from their respective places of employment, but in at least one case will infect the computer with dangerous code. This list of links has no scholarly merit, nor any redeeming value whatsoever. Tyr shadowblade 09:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User's second edit, both on AfD pages. Also, the content of the linked sites is not the topic of discussion here. Just because the sites are disgusting or dangerous to a user's computer does not mean that it should not be on Wikipedia. --Breathstealer 12:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Attempted vote stacking Note that Skinmeister (talk • contribs) solicited votes from 20 people (see his contribs). Not all have voted here but more than half have, and all of them voted keep. I don't think any of the voters were acting in bad faith, it's just worth notifying the closing admin about this. Mangojuice 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- That was an unfortunately necessary answer to attempted vote-stacking by the nominator Conrad Devonshire, who contacted everybody who had voted "delete" in previous nominations. Many of them came here and voted "delete". I think the playing field was levelled again by Skinmeister's action, although two wrongs don't make a right. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did not know that there was a rule against this, and I expected that keep voters would likely inform other users about this nomination, so I don't consider this the same as trying to stack votes. If I had created the nomination, had not mentioned it on its page or the "articles for deletion" page, and had then informed previous delete voters of the nomination, that would have been different, however. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- That was an unfortunately necessary answer to attempted vote-stacking by the nominator Conrad Devonshire, who contacted everybody who had voted "delete" in previous nominations. Many of them came here and voted "delete". I think the playing field was levelled again by Skinmeister's action, although two wrongs don't make a right. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Conrad's arguments are almost completely spurious. This is no more advertisement for shock sites than List of fast-food restaurants is an advertisement for fast food restaurants. This is notable information because shock sites are, like it or not, a notable internet sociological phenomenon. WP:NOT says that "obviously inappropriate content" is forbidden except from an article directly concerning the content. If links to shock sites are inappropriate on a list of links to shock sites, what exactly *is* appropriate? Furthermore, bringing up users' motivations in voting is a total red-herring. But the ridiculousness of this claim is all the more vindicated by the fact that Conrad solicited votes from previous AfD nominations for this page, as well as his numerous lamentations of society's "corruption" on his user page. If this doesn't make the existence of a personal agenda blatantly obvious, I don't know what does. Avertist 14:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The phenomenon of shock sites / picture collections has been around even before the
internet. It is too important not to be listed here. Also, the page enables people to inform themselves on the subject without acutally spoiling their day by having to look at the sites. gbrandt 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pint of skull-splitter with a triple whisky depth-charge Strong Keep. This article was last saved (SPEEDILY!) a few days ago and I see nothing in the nomination describing what has changed since then. I also have some issues with the bizarre formatting of the nom-
can't the emboldened (vote) text be removed or at least stricken to avoid confusion? Badgerpatrol 16:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)-
Ta. Badgerpatrol 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Keep and protect from further renominations. This list is perfectly acceptable, no valid reason for deletion has been provided by the nominator. Silensor 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)KEEP - I think that this list might actually be a good resource for someone studying these kinds of things (probably university/college students). I don't think it should be deleted. --User:Matt0401 19:12, 18 April 2006 (EST)Keep with serious grooming much as I dislike unpleasant content, that's not a good reason to remove it in itself. However, unverified content should be removed, and that means that the bulk of the page (all the links that aren't able to be an article themselves) should be removed. I count three items on the list that can be included, which will make a very short (but verifiable) article. Ziggurat 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)KEEP First of all, I sent a goatse link to my friend, Karl, under the guise of "your dad," and his reaction was really funny. Second, this is important encyclopedic knowledge and very notable. Third, deleting something just because it's unpleasant is like then saying why not delete gangrene, anencephaly (that image really ****ed me up!), Nazism, the Holocaust, Bill Cosby, or Michael Jackson just because they're unpleasant. Bill Sayre 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Comment - I ask users to stop personally attacking me and claiming that I have an "agenda" for nominating this article simply because I am a Christian or because I believe that the world is corrupt in many ways. If you do not agree with my nomination, then that is your preference, but simply state it and refrain from personal attacks. I thank User:The Minister of War for defending me in this matter. I know that some users have felt that I have done this by posting remarks from previous keep voters in my introduction and using them as examples of a lack of concern on part of the keep voters, however that was not the same, and nevertheless I have removed it to avoid confict. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Response I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest here, but there is an element of stones and glass houses involved with this. Some may interpret your opening comments to be attacking past (and potential) 'Keep' voters- you do seem to imply that the preponderance are a) selfish, and b) do not have the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart. It would have been a better idea to simply state your opinion of the article, why YOU think it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia, and particularly, what has changed since the previous 'Keep' vote on the 9th of April?. Speculating as to voter's intent or cherrypicking previous votes (for or against) is unnecessary. I have to say, it is not hard to detect POV in the wording of your nomination (rather than a frank assessment of the article's quality), which editors may pick up and comment upon. Of course however, the only points to be considered here are a) does the article conform to policy; b) has good process been followed in making the nomination. All else is irrelevant. Personal or ad hominem attacks of ANY form are always unacceptable. Badgerpatrol 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - When the votes are counted on this article I hope they are done carefully. I feel many of the keep votes are from smurfs accounts. If Jimbo came along I bet he'd agree on deleting this page.--Andeee 01:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)I'd bet he'd buy me a pony. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 04:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Maybe- but more importantly, What would Brian Boitano do? ;-) Badgerpatrol 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)He'd make a plan and follow through! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP No good arguement for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.36.47 (talk • contribs)They're trying to blank the article. Hi everyone. It looks like Aaron Brenneman blanked most of the List of shock sites article because he says the statements need sources. However, the sites are linked to and anyone can see plainly that they're shocking. Consensus is to keep the article and this appears to me to be a underhanded way of trying to delete it. Another user is trying to do the same now, as well.--Primetime 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Comment Whether or not they're "shocking" (an opinion) is not the point. The links to the articles have discriptions next to them describing their content, but most make no attempt at verification, and therefore there is no way of determining their accuracy.
Keep, but clean-up. It's survived several nominations so why is it being relisted again? And anyone who votes delete just because they find it offensive should not have their vote counted as far as I'm concerned, wikipedia is not censored, nor should it be. The Ungovernable Force 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Keep, last AfD closed 6 days after this one began. 3 clear consensus AfD's in the past to keep article. The reference to shock site links in WP:NOT is taken completely out of context. I don't know Conrad at all, but given this and the opening commentary, I really question the good faith of this nomination. -- Samir
(the scope) 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom (which I have read and yes I have looked at the article; simply the nominator makes my points for me). --kingboyk 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Keep useful information about an important internet fad. The nomination seems to imply that if you want to keep, you are working against wikipedia, not cool. It is also interesting that an admin has protected a nearly blanked version of the article. Lapinmies 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 06:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Keep. — Apr. 19, '06 [07:07] <freakofnurxture|talk> (user's 21,533rd edit)Keep These sites exist and there is no reason not to document them. If you vote delete, you're on the long wavelength. YahoKa 16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom who does an excellent and thorough job of explaining why this article should be deleted. I had noticed the previous noms but was unsure of which way to vote, this nom clearly explains a valid reason for deletion. --Hetar 07:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)The page is completely redundant. There is already an article on the subject, which if properly expanded in accordance with the content policies and associated guidelines WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CITE will more than adequately cover whichever few sites have the supportive literature necessary for encyclopedic treatment. There is also the category, to link to the small number of articles on those shocksites which have enough reliable source material to justify individual article pages. The page as it appeared before Brenneman's clean up was in a very poor state. Aside from the redundancy issue, there was an arbitrary division of the sites into "Major shock sites" and "Other shock sites"; this is an inherently non-neutral construct, as is the idea that some of the entries are indeed "shocking" in the first place.The keep arguments are not convincing, to my mind. "Useful" is not synonymous with "deserving an encyclopedia entry". My telephone directory is useful too; like this list, however, that does not mean it is appropriate for its contents to be listed in a Wikipedia entry. The test of encyclopediability has never changed: has the subject been sufficiently studied and reported on in multiple, independent, reliable publications? Are there books, theses, monographs, journal articles, government or repliable third-party reports, newspaper articles, and/or magazine articles that are focused on the subject? If these are plentiful and of very high quality, and the subject meets notability guidelines, then the acceptability of having a page on the subject is a given (for example, Bertrand Russell). At the other end, if there are a few stray sentences on the subject in a newspaper article that is devoted to something else, the subject probably does not deserve an dedicated entry, especially if there is no sound reason to adopt an m:eventualist view (the John Bambanek entry was a good example). And if the subject has no source whatsoever (in independent reputable publications), the question of including it in the encyclopedia in any form simply does not arise: we can't include it, whether as a statement in a broader article, an item on a list, or (obviously) a dedicated entry.I suspect the items on this list fall in several different places on this spectrum. A small number may have source material; many, however, are likely entirely bereft of good sources. This posits a further difficulty for this list, in addition to the redundancy and non-neutral arguments I have already alluded to above. The best outcome IMHO would be to expand the main article on shock sites (in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CITE). I would ask for a redirect, but the phrase "List of shock sites" isn't a good one. Hence, delete. —Encephalon 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Comment The difference between your telephone directory and a list of internet shock sites is that your telephone directory is only useful on a local level. If there was a wiki for the city of Burlington, North Carolina, an article listing public telephone numbers for Burlington, North Carolina might be appropriate after all.There are a number of cultural phenomena that have articles on wikipedia (such as Culture jamming, Internet troll, and virtually every article discussed in Internet meme) that receive (compared to Bertrand Russell) little attention from mainstream publications and academia. I think this is a pretty poor measure of worthiness on wikipedia.A comprehensive list of shock sites is no less legitimate an article topic than a comprehensive list of famous children of Orthodox clergy (which I'd wager a list of shock sites is both more useful than and more encyclopediable than). However, if it is going to remain in its present, heavily edited form, the article may as well be merged with Shock sites. Avertist 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Comment I agree with Avertist here, this person clearly has some knowledge of Internet trolling and understands the worthiness of such a list. I also believe that we should revert to the previous version of the article before Aaron Brenneman decided, in my opinion incorrectly, to delete most of the article in order to illustrate a point. - Abscissa 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
SNOW. Cant somebody WP:SNOW this? I'm kinda tired of adding comments to disruptive posts and socks. We all know its not doing to get deleted anytime soon. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Keep - Unfortunately, this stuff is notable. Cyde Weys 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Comment I'd just like to point out, to all of you who say "There's already a Shock Site article" that on the Talk:Shock Site page, they agreed to spin off this list to help keep their article manageable. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Keep and clean up. Notable as per all the other "keep" votes. Deleting the article won't make them go away. Frankly, I hope this article keeps more internet n00bs from being duped. People who don't understand the notability are blissfully insulated from the interweb that many of us see every day. Finally, for a moment of humor (and I promise this isn't a shock site), please see these funny "remake" of a comics[14][15] --again, I repeat it has nothing offensive in it as of this time stamp: Bobak 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Delete. Yet another unmanagable inherently POV list. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Keep Shocks sites are a notable phenomenan in the internet. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Speedy keep Shock sites are an Internet phenomenon with a notable history. Also, this page warns people of shock sites they may be passed. The reason I say it's a "speedy" keep is that after three unsuccesful attempts to censor Wikipedia, it should be kept as a lesson to all those who seek to inundate Wikipedia with attempts at deletion and re-hash deletion requests.
Ay Double Yoo 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge into main shock sites article. -Objectivist-C 05:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Keep per above. -ryan-d 09:50, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Airline booking ploys
Does Wikipedia really exist to show people how to fiddle the system? Especially when the article says (and I paraphrase) the main airlines don't like people doing this? Francs2000 
11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Indeed, this article raises ethical questions, but I don't see a big difference between this and an article about DeCSS, for example. I think this article gives a balanced view, and underlines the fact that these methods are shady at best. Bardak 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Keep, since the article does mention the downfalls of attempts to game the system. (Indeed, I've worked for employers who have done things like back-to-back ticketing.) The article could probably use an update, though, since a majority of air travel done these days is via E-tickets, and the traditional flight coupon seems to be a thing of the past. --Elkman - (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. How is this topic encyclopedic? GT 18:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete I can't see how this article wouldn't be original research ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Comment I think that we should have an article on this, but there are copyright issues involving the link provided - see [16]. -- Mithent 01:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)I believe that a good, externally verifiable article could very well be written on this subject (the best start to such an article would by making it about such tactics as opposed to a how-to on such tactics. Howver, at this point in time, the current article is not in parallel to my beliefs. I would not be qualified to contribute to such an article, and would not shed any tears either way. -- Saberwyn 12:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I am the originator of this article. This article is my first full contribution to Wikipedia. So far I have only done minor fixes under an anonymous identity. I was much dismayed to see that the article has been tagged with an AfD flag only seconds after its completion and somewhat in disregard of WP:BITE. But I guess this is now as good a forum as any to discuss it.
Originally, I started this article thinking that the subject is in the likeness of Pyramid Scheme or Creative accounting and should be covered by Wikipedia, and having thought that I am ripe enough now to be capable of achieving the feat of contributing a full article. Apparently, this was not the case, as can be seen from some of the above statements made by fellow users.
I agree with the comment made by Saberwyn that a good, externally verifiable article could very well be written on this subject. I can try and improve this article myself so it meets such standards, but the time might not be right for that just yet.However, some of the claims presented here were unjustified, in my opinion. Minor ethical questions would have more properly been discussed on the talk page, and not immediately under an AfD. As for the article being original research, numerous sites discuss the matter thoroughly, as can be seen from a Google search.In conclusion, I propose this article be made into a stub. --Bardak 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Thank you for your contributions. I and the others who have voted to delete appreciate the time you took to make the article and your initiative in deciding to do it but we just disagree that such a topic even deserves an article at all. Personally my reasoning is that almost any system can be gamed and exploited. It should be obvious that the same is true about the air travel industry. To that end the topic itself simply doesn't merit an article, and the fact that the article ends up being basically a how-to guide kind of reinforces that for me.If the article gets deleted please do not feel discouraged. You might want to consider finding other existing articles and seeing how much of this article fits into them. GT 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There are ethical issues in there, but I believe the article should be expanded upon (and put into the appropriate ethical frame), not deleted. Strong Keep --Ramdrake 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Keep and expand. Distasteful subject matter is not grounds for deletion. FinFangFoom 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Keep, nothing wrong with this. Wikipedia is not censored. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 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 delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Usbob
Vanity, Fancruft, non-notable, unencyclopedic - take your pick SFC9394 12:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep.I’ll say exactly what I said yesterday when the article was removed from the deletion list. “Usbob may be an amateur football club, but it is certainly a recognised football club in the Prestwick and Ayr region of Scotland. There is nothing wrong with the actual article and is more in depth than some professional team's articles. Please keep this harmless article.” - Martin Le Roy 13:44, 15 April 2006 (BST)
I am sorry - it reads as a load of nonsense - "Chairman: Colin Usbobison" - utter rubbish - sources please for this being notable to the ayrshire resion, from the Ayrshire Post newspaper or some such. WP is not a playground for a load of lads having a laugh. The article is pure Vanity it is as simple as that. SFC9394 12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
"WP is not a playground for a load of lads having a laugh." That I do agree with. That is why we keep our ramblings to our website and away from here. As it stands the article in entirely true. PS. the Colin Usbobison bit is a mistake from when I created the article, it's been fixed.Martin Le Roy 14:12, 15 April 2006 (BST)
-
-
That is your opinion - I will let the rest of the WP community decide how valid your points are (bearing in mind the only edits you have made have been on that one article) SFC9394 13:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Incorrect, I did some updates on the Kilmarnock FC article aswell, though i wasn't signed in as Martin Le Roy. It is down as 81.77.213.120
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 edits under an anon IP which could or could not be you is not an edit history. Can you provide any credible media source to back up whether this team even exists? SFC9394 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
We are metioned on http://www.expage.com/gullspeed, the official website of World Seagull Racing. It's nice to know we are recognised by other sports.
-
-
-
-
Keep.This article should be kept as I feel this team is very important to the culture of ayrshire. i am sure that many others would agree that this is a very informative page, and has a lot of valid information to the team. I wholeheartidly agree with what Martin Le Roy has said in his previous statements. Shaun Cumming12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC) <-- this comment was actually posted by 87.81.48.82Delete. The article is decently written, nice infobox, but a short google on USBOB FC shows only 4 distinct sites listing them [17]. I'd be happy to reinstate the article once they've played a few years more, and won a few notable prizes. All the best to you! The Minister of War (Peace) 14:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is unlike the old paper encyclopedias - it has a lot more storage space! While this article may not be about Britney Spears, it is still well done and is about a real football league. So keep it. george 15:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Given the article isn't even about a football league, and the 'club' doesn't even play in a league I am confused as to your comments. SFC9394 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It's about a real club that play in a real league, so i am siding with george on this one. Good work!! shaun cumming
-
-
There was absolutely no legitimate reason for you displaying my IP address. I am extremely disappointed that a site of your stature would resort to such a thing without first asking permission!! I am perfectly aware that i am within my rights to stand up for a club which i used to happily watch every week. i made it to a standard that i have now been asked to join this club! shaun cumming
-
-
-
-
Hey Shaun, your IP gets logged automagically (check the history tab above). It is quite standard for unsigned posts to be attributed to IPs if they have no user account. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it really is standard practice. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Strong Delete Violates WP:HOAX, WP:VAIN, WP:V and WP:N. It looks to be something made up in a bar as I seriously doubt that the British Prime Minister is their chairman [18]. Absolutely no sources beyond their hoax webpages. Gwernol 15:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hold your horses son... I'd be ok with this getting chucked off cos of Usbob's fledgling notability. But Usbob is real, it is not a hoax let me be clear on that. Besides, as I suggested earlier, our websites have no bearing on what we suggest is actually going on at the club. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin Le Roy (talk • contribs) .
-
If the club is real, please provide independent verifiable sources that show that. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a verifiable factual basis for the article. If there is, I will be happy to change my opinion. Gwernol 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Further to that, can you please hold off creating any more articles at the moment Martin, until you understand how WP works - Doors (Sport) which you have just created being an example of something that is also likely going to be nominated for deletion unless you can prove that it satisfies Verifiable and Notable amongst other policies. It is important that you understand that WP is not just a online dumping ground for any old thoughts or ideas - the two articles highlighted would be much more suitable at Wikicities than here at WP.SFC9394 16:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I'll be honest with you, due to the lack of good Ayrshire amature football coverage it's not looking good, is it. I think everything on the official website apart from the frontpage and news is true. The only other evidence I could produce is from the Prestwick Academy Yearbook from when we played their teachers for CIN. Martin Le Roy 17:21, 15 April 2006 (BST)
-
-
-
http://usbob-fc.tripod.com/id29.html pictures of the team with other real people, thats a start at least. I'll get rid of Doors (Sport), only 4 people play it in the world, i see your point there Martin Le Roy 17:27, 15 April 2006 (BST)
-
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom and Gwernol. RexNL 21:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom. Nortelrye 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete: nn local club. --Hetar 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Delete not notable at all. --Eivindt@c 15:44, 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.
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 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spiral Dive (band)
Band not appearing to meet WP:BAND guideline. Prod contested. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BAND. Can't find anything relevant on Allmusic or Google. --TBC
??? ??? ??? 14:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per nom. Nortelrye 23:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Holly Waring
Seems like a hoax. Only 34 Google hits, and none of them mention King Henry VIII or anything historical. SCHZMO ✍ 14:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:V--TBC??? ??? ??? 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete. Poppycock. george 15:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete as all the above. Gwernol 15:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete Unless sources, references and citations for the claims in the article can be provided for proof, this appears to be a {{hoax}}. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)- Delete. Probably a hoax. DarthVader 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax and amusing play on "Holy Warring". —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 05:41 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and (aeropagitica). --blue520 06:05, 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.
- 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. Chick Bowen 05:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Corporate strategy development method
Was orginally nominated for deletion, but nobody declared anything; relisting. User:SP-KP stated: I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) No vote. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, seems to be a guide on company organization and structuring created by members of Method Engineering team of the University of Utrecht. Google only shows 2 results [19], both of which are from Wikipedia. --TBC??? ??? ??? 14:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all Corporate jargon--Zxcvbnm 14:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. People pay consultants thousands of dollars for advice like this. There are books on this topic in the business section of any bookstore. This appears to be more than Corporate Jargon, the page has useful information on it. george 15:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: seems like OR. If the Method Engineering team wants to publish their work online, perhaps they should look into Wikibooks or Wikiversity. --Hetar 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 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 Redirect to David M. Shoup. Shimgray | talk | 14:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] David Monroe Shoup
In the words of the article creator, "This text doesn't need to be here ... this bio was already created under David M. Shoup"--Zxcvbnm 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to David M. Shoup --TBC??? ??? ??? 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. When an article tells you it needs to be deleted, you have to go with it. george 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have Boldly changed to a redirect page. The El Reyko 21:43, 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends, Romoin, and Insta-nan
The Wonderful World Of Romoin is a non-notable webcomic you'll find here. Romoin is an article about the main character of this comic, and Insta-nan is the (fictional) brand of coffee he prefers. Its claim to notability is that the comic has a small following on two internet forums (no Wikipedia articles for either) and that the author spammed it on a third. It doesn't meet WP:WEB. It also has WP:VAIN problems as all three articles are by the webcomic's author (note the author and licenses used on the images uploaded to commons). –Abe Dashiell
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. You can't bootstrap yourself into notability by starting with Wikipedia. Get notable first, then we'll see about an article. george 15:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Gwernol 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nortelrye 23:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete - believe it or not, this webcomic DOES have a following, as evidenced by the amount of people visiting the page. The REAL website address is www.geocities.com/worldofromoin/ and check out the critics page to see what people think about it. It's inclusion in Wikipedia is completely valid and far more interesting than listing Speed dating - John Surname
- Delete nn and vanity. Listed on "geocities".--Jersey Devil 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable webcomic 203.26.16.67 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC) - [You're not even a user]
- Don't delete - It's notable ENOUGH. I actually created the "Wonderful World Of" entry, and I have nothing at all to do with the creation of the comic.Jesustrashcan 16:48, 16 April 2006
- Would you be so kind as to provide verifiable information taken from what the Wikipedia community considers reliable, third-party sources to back up your claim "it's notable enough". Items such as regional or national level newspapers or magazines citing the webcomic's popularity would be your best bet for such a thing. As an internet based comic, it would also be a good idea to review the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, and if you can provide sources showing that this comic can meet one or more of the listed criteria, I would say keep and merge all into comic's main article. If this cannot be done by the end of the deletion discussion, delete away as externally unverifiable. -- Saberwyn 12:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's obviously notable enough that I came across it through Internet browsing. If you can find something on the Internet that easily through Google, then I'd say it's rather notable. Not to mention the fact that this, by all means, is NOT a vanity article, as - as I said, I have nothing at all to do with the creation of the comics - but you neglected to mention that in your rebuttal. Did you feel you didn't need to, or was it just your agenda? Jesustrashcan 13:06, 17 April 2006
- I'm not saying it is or it isn't a vanity article. I don't care who wrote the article, as in my personal view a well-sourced, externally verifiable article can be written by the creator or someone with a vested interest in the article's subject. I'm asking: "Can you provide sources such as reviews from newspapers, magazines, or major websites independant of the comic, demonstrating the notability of this article?" and/or "Has this comic been presented with an award from a major publisher or organisation?". Because a Google search for the title of the comic produces twelve unique from 55 hits, which implies a limited spread of the comic's notability across the internet, I am wondering if you can provide any published sources that attest to how popular the comic is, and therefore, if it passes the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline.
- It states, in the very first line on the page, that it is not actually Wikipedia policy except in the cases of advertisement or using Wikipedia as a web directory. While it may not fit any of the criteria, it is neither an advertisement or an attempt at using Wikipedia as a web directory. Those aren't guidelines, they're merely suggestions. Jesustrashcan 14:50, 17 April 2006
- I'm not sure which section of the guideline you are starting at, but the first sentances I see state "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), but it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered in Wikipedia in a way that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are formal policies." This guideline is the black-and-white copy of the consensus arrived at concerning website inclusion a while ago, and although it is a guideline, my personal interpretation is that if an article on web-based content cannot be demonstrated to meet any of the points listed, then another reason, one which is not feasibly covered by the guideline, must be provided if the article is to be included. I have not said that the article is an advertisment, or an attempt to promote the comic or use weblinks on Wikipedia to promote increased readership in any way or form. I have said that the article is unverifiable (official policy), through the use of reliable, third-party sources (guideline detailing how the verifiability policy can be enacted). -- Saberwyn 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- TWWOR is totally verifiable. It is an actual comic. It has a following of people. Who read it. And enjoy it. EVERYTHING on the page is 100% TRUE! I am not advertising, and simply because I can't afford a proper website, how does that make mine ANY LESS VALID? The websites that I host Romoin on ARE NOT PERSONAL WEBSITES/BLOGS. They are completely free of opinion. Just Romoin. Thrusty thrusty. - User:Johnsurname
- I don't see how John Daker or O RLY? are more notable than this, and this is up for deletion. But perhaps I'm just ignorant? Jesustrashcan 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- TWWOR is totally verifiable. It is an actual comic. It has a following of people. Who read it. And enjoy it. EVERYTHING on the page is 100% TRUE! I am not advertising, and simply because I can't afford a proper website, how does that make mine ANY LESS VALID? The websites that I host Romoin on ARE NOT PERSONAL WEBSITES/BLOGS. They are completely free of opinion. Just Romoin. Thrusty thrusty. - User:Johnsurname
- I'm not saying it is or it isn't a vanity article. I don't care who wrote the article, as in my personal view a well-sourced, externally verifiable article can be written by the creator or someone with a vested interest in the article's subject. I'm asking: "Can you provide sources such as reviews from newspapers, magazines, or major websites independant of the comic, demonstrating the notability of this article?" and/or "Has this comic been presented with an award from a major publisher or organisation?". Because a Google search for the title of the comic produces twelve unique from 55 hits, which implies a limited spread of the comic's notability across the internet, I am wondering if you can provide any published sources that attest to how popular the comic is, and therefore, if it passes the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline.
- Well, it's obviously notable enough that I came across it through Internet browsing. If you can find something on the Internet that easily through Google, then I'd say it's rather notable. Not to mention the fact that this, by all means, is NOT a vanity article, as - as I said, I have nothing at all to do with the creation of the comics - but you neglected to mention that in your rebuttal. Did you feel you didn't need to, or was it just your agenda? Jesustrashcan 13:06, 17 April 2006
- Would you be so kind as to provide verifiable information taken from what the Wikipedia community considers reliable, third-party sources to back up your claim "it's notable enough". Items such as regional or national level newspapers or magazines citing the webcomic's popularity would be your best bet for such a thing. As an internet based comic, it would also be a good idea to review the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, and if you can provide sources showing that this comic can meet one or more of the listed criteria, I would say keep and merge all into comic's main article. If this cannot be done by the end of the deletion discussion, delete away as externally unverifiable. -- Saberwyn 12:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - It's hosted on spaces.msn.com - NO. - Hahnchen 12:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Its webhost shouldn't be considered a reason for its deletion. Jesustrashcan 13:09, 17 April 2006
- Though I am doubtful of its notability, because it's apparent I mistook the original authorship of the The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends article, I am changing my implied delete for it to no vote. I maintain that both Insta-nan and Romoin should be deleted, however, and I am not withdrawing the AfD as a whole. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)(t/c) 15:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Having looked more into this, even though I was wrong about WP:VANITY for the original article, I don't believe The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends comes close to meeting WP:WEB. Therefore, delete for all three articles. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- ok the Insta-Nan and Romoin entries can go. But I still believe the comic is notable enough for it to stay. I created the MSN spaces site after the original site because I felt it might be easier to maintain a following on a blog format- johnsurname
- Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:50, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Corporation Ltd
As far as I can tell, this company fails to meet any of the three notability standards at WP:CORP. Therefore, I am recommending deletion as non-notable. RayaruB 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Although the article needs to be expanded, CAO is clearly a notable corporation. Google turns up multiple significant hits [20], it trades on the Singapore stock exchange as ChinaAOil [21] and its owner is at the center of a major scandal [22]. Gwernol 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and immediate cleanup, expansion. Reads like an ad currently, it is a notable company in Singapore, there was a scandal in 2004 which was a major one and its CEO was imprisoned. The company is definitely notable and listed companies are notable. --Terence Ong 15:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Its a real company. george 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep major corporation ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:26, 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 redirect to Eddie Guerrero. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vickie Guerrero
The article subject is only famous because of her (now deceased) husband. She don't require an article. McPhail 15:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Eddie Guerrero as she is not notable beyond her relationship with him. GT 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect --Tone 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Eddie Guerrero. --Oakster (Talk) 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Eddie Guerrero. Long-standing consensus on bio articles is that non-notable relatives of notable people go in the notable person's article. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National Television
Non notable company. Alexa ranking of 869,820, and Google doesn't work well with such a common phrase. "national television" "Brumby Boylston" -wikipedia only gets 119 hits, though. Rory096(block) 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, seems to not reach WP:CORP. Weak sugestion to redirect to National (brand).--blue520 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim
Fire! 21:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 22:22, 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. - brenneman{L} 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Badger Badger Badger Parodies
This page was created by Greenunity (talk · contribs) who also owns the site that hosts the "rogerrogerroger" animation. He spammed his link into Badger Badger Badgers–related pages [23] [24] [25] and when he was told to stop he created this article as a vehicle for his and other non-notable "parodies". Apart from that, this article is vanity and verges on WP:POINT. It explicitly does not include notable animations that are on Badger Badger Badger, and therefore is entirely non-notable by design. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Plenty of room for all notable parodies on Badger Badger Badger. --Allen 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per allen ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There is NOT enough room on the main Badger Badger Badger article for all the parodies, this article is NOT giving provision for my own personal gain, I merely find it interesting how modern society has interpreted Badger Badger Badger and made it to suit popular facets of society like "Potter Potter Potter". I have only been a wiki member for a few months, I have now learnt and come to respect the rules and think I should be allowed to make mistakes in the first few days of my membership.--Greenunity 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to add that the animations are notable, I have found two in a German forum I have no affiliation with. http://limpies.milten.lima-city.de/m-gf/include.php?path=forum/showthread.php&threadid=101&PHPKITSID=69be37da7a596b3db3e372c8e6bddc6e there is a hyperlink to two animations at the bottom post. --Greenunity 14:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge/redirect into Badger Badger Badger; there's still plenty of room in the original article.Delete due to Saxifrage's comment. It seems that we clearly already have editorial consensus that these links aren't notable. Andy Saunders 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)- Comment: the page was created to contain animations whose links were rejected from Badger Badger Badger by consensus of its editors. Merging would just get them deleted again. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is correct and is why I created the article in the first place;-to facilitate all of the parodies. --Greenunity 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- How exactly do the animations qualify as notable? Is it your own personal opinion-because I bet it is? There are some links to parodies in the main Badger Badger Badger article that have NO notability whatsoever-we've all heard of the japanese version-NOT. It seems to stem from your personal taste and prejudice. Finally, I don't spam, I was merely trying to contribute to the encyclopedia.--Greenunity 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: There are guidelines for notability that are used to decide what to include in the encyclopedia and what not to. By all means, if you see utterly non-notable links at Badger Badger Badger (like that Japanese one—I quite agree), by all means do remove them. They don't belong. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a handy page and I feel it demonstrates adequately the scope of the internet meme and the associated spate of parodies. As such it is informative and in the best tradition of wikipedia entries. CMIIW 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: In the event of a keep outcome, do you think it needs any cleanup or is it fine as it is? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad we agree for once, in relation to notability. I would also agree that if the article stays, it should be cleaned up and expanded upon. As I have learnt, it truely is a fascinating sociological subject. The article needs to reflect that. --Greenunity 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't agree to anything. I was asking if the voter had an opinion on the current state of the article, since their rationale seems to be more about the subject of the article rather than the current contents. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fine then.--Greenunity 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't agree to anything. I was asking if the voter had an opinion on the current state of the article, since their rationale seems to be more about the subject of the article rather than the current contents. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad we agree for once, in relation to notability. I would also agree that if the article stays, it should be cleaned up and expanded upon. As I have learnt, it truely is a fascinating sociological subject. The article needs to reflect that. --Greenunity 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: In the event of a keep outcome, do you think it needs any cleanup or is it fine as it is? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as for Greenuity, unless you really think all the parodies will fit on Badger Badger Badger. But I think soon it would get too cluttered and the list would be larger than the article. Matty-chan 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not everything belongs in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a links directory and those links were removed from Badger Badger Badger not for lack of room but lack of relevance. See Wikipedia:Notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, I added the Japanese parody on the main page as as indication of "OMG! even those crazy ppl from japan knows about it! *adds*" If consensus determines that unnotable, I'm fine with removing it. deadkid_dk 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Badger badger badger, at best. Prefer delete. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 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. No Guru 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sparky Deathcap
It seems to me that having an "official webpage" that's a MySpace profile is prima facie evidence of non-notability. I'm not an expert on musical groups, however, so I'm opening it up for discussion instead of using prod. Icarus 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Only GHit for his supposedly released album is on DeviantArt (similar to myspace as prima facie evidence of non-notability). His alleged record company's website [27] is an empty shell from Lycos Web Hosting with a "coming soon" note. Fan1967 18:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, much of the article seems to me to be trollish and/or unverifiable. Nowhere is his notability asserted or is it shown that he has attracted any significant audience. However I'd steer clear of making such assumptions about MySpace, as it is extremely common for popular bands to have MySpace profiles, and it's not unthinkable that a band could have one without having a web site proper. GT 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's true that many popular acts have myspace pages. The red flag is when that's the only place they're listed. Fan1967 18:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I wrote the article - part of Sparky Deathcap's identity is his supposed recent death and ferral upbringing. He's had a significant following in the UK, but there have been no major releases yet. The nettlejam website is due to be finished in 2 weeks time. It's still under development. MutePoint 19:40, 15 April 2006 (BST)
- Comment: If you're not trolling, now is your chance to present some evidence for your claims. Otherwise this article is original research at best and not allowed. GT 18:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and also, as per MutePoint (although the other way) "no major releases" and "still under development" Tony Bruguier 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. --Tone 18:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WTH. Danny Lilithborne 21:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete as above Pete.Hurd 04:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the myspace test. Stifle (talk) 23:31, 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. See relevant discussion. Harro5 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CIA's Role: 'PBSUCCESS'
OR essay Rory096(block) 19:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious delete per nom. Joe 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. Scott Grayban 19:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as OR. Daniel Case 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatant OR essay. --Allen 20:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR. Danny Lilithborne 20:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete - This coulda been speedied. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete belongs with the rest of the "history of guatemala" articles ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 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 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star Wars Episode VII: The Fallen Hero/Temp
Delete - complete fancruft, never gonna happen, etc. This article has been up multiple times (with different titles, of course), and every time it has either been speedy deleted or deleted, as discussed most recently here. MikeWazowski 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, and per statement that should there ever be a VII it would be the Zahn book series. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. total fancruft. Nortelrye 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as Supershadow lies. [29] It's probably also a copyvio. -LtNOWIS 03:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Tactical Nuclear Ewok Delete all supershadowcruft. -- Saberwyn 11:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, total speculation and fancruft, and already deleted in various other incarnations. BryanG 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as recreated content. The JPS 19:56, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Omaha Cox Channel 22, Omaha Cox Channel 23
Non notable public access channels. Rory096(block) 20:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge but keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete public access channels cannot be notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I'd argue about Swatjester's assertion, but these two channels don't seem that important. I'm welcome to correction. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 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. -Doc ask? 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fernando Llort
Google search for Fernando Llort Choussy comes up with 22 hits, not all related to him. Not notable, can't find any evidence of "international recognition" ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete Search for Fernando Llort returns 522 Google hits (I don't think the last name in a Spanish name is always used....); however, doesn't seem to meet this critierion of WP:BIO: # Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Nontrivial Google presence when searched for under professional name, well-known Salvadoran artist, designed principal murals at National Cathedral [30], gallery listed on tourism sites [31], [32], described as "most famous artist" in El Salvador [33]. Involved in Romero memorials, should be no issue as to notability. Monicasdude 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, seems to just about pass the bar. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rochester fosgate
Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Although band is listed at allmusic.com [35] and album is being sold at amazon.com [36] (ranked at 689,116) per WP:MUSIC, at least two album releases on major labels establishes notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 02:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 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.
![[6]](http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/hitler.adolf/oss-papers/images/gif/00010246.gif){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/hitler.adolf/oss-papers/images/gif/00010144.gif){kind=link}
![[14]](http://www.kitsuneparadise.com/images/bbgoatse.png){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.kitsuneparadise.com/images/jparker.png){kind=link}