Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] April 30
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Major Redmon
Hoax. Unreferenced info about a barely notable (if real) player. No relevant Ghits. Unverifiable 
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As nominator. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Whether it's a hoax or not, the article seems to be about a high-school level athlete, and would thus be non-notable anyway. On closer inspection, it seems strongly like a hoax, especially the statue part and that the named high school gets no Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. Beno1000 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - even if verifiable, the article's subject isn't notable, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. ...Scott5114 00:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Consign to the pits —porges(talk) 00:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Most likely a hoax and non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Hoax, lived in Gainesville once BTW,no dates or verifiable data and reads like original research.--John Lakonias 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Starblind. -- ReyBrujo 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Williams (actor)
Hoax. The "achievements" of the actor should make him notable enough to have google hits, but no relevant hits found. As said on the talk page search made in the Internet Broadway Database yields no result. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. Beno1000 00:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless verified. Likely hoax. IBDB does show a Richard Williams, with one animation(!) credit, before the article subject was even born. There are of course notable people with that name, and it's also the birth name of Treat Williams. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Metamagician3000 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - the creator has a history of idiotic vandalism. - Richardcavell 02:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete until/unless verified. Darquis 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Most likely a hoax. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Siva --Deville (Talk) 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep appears to be keep by unanimous decision ALKIVAR™
03:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cock rock
What a load of WP:BALLS, no pun intended. If it were sourced, it would still be a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 00:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Come on already, Brian. Seriously. Among other things, highly well known slang term for a style of rock music, well-known enough to become an album title for the band Diesel Boy, makes at least 6 listings in the current Google News listing for the last 7 days. Extremely bad nomination, and WP:BALLS isn't a damn thing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
cock rock slang, rock music, esp. heavy metal, characterized by the ostentatious male sexuality of its lyrics and performance; so cock rocker. 1971 M. SAUNDERS in Creem May 74/2 As much as I hate heavy music—*cock rock, macho rock, or whatever the current name for it is—I have to admit to having every Blue Cheer album ever made. 2003 Kitchen Sink Winter 19/1 [Led Zeppelin] truly were the creators of ‘cock rock’, in the hyper-masculine sexuality of their sound, their songs and in the presentation of their actual packages, which were often practically visible through their tight-ass bell bottoms. 1977 Creem July 50/3 I can't help but wonder if part of their popularity is due to the fact that they're the last of an era of *cock rockers who play dirty and, if you'll excuse the expression, ‘chauvinistic’ rock 'n' roll. 2002 Independent on Sunday 10 Feb. 3/1 It's big enough to mean that..student bands don't play there and small enough to deter cock-rockers on the enormo-barn circuit.
- Yeah, that's a dictionary definition. How is this an encyclopedia article? Brian G. Crawford 01:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- It has potential for quite a bit more expansion: examples of songs, tracing the history (and demise/rebirth if such exists as the current article seems to support) of the 'genre', origins of the term if we can find it. —porges(talk) 01:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You claimed that even if it were sourced, it would be a neologism. Clearly this shows otherwise. Darquis 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Darquis
- Keep - notable genre and cultural phenomenon, more than a dicdef already with plenty of room for expansion. dbtfztalk 01:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep - weak, because I wonder whether this couldn't be merged into another article. Metamagician3000 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not a neologism, and no Wiki Policy was brought forward as a reason for deletion (not to mention that WP:BALLS isn't even appropriate here) Darquis 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it's actually a widely used term, though the article could be cleaned up. - Richardcavell 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, more than a dicdef. --Terence Ong 06:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, article looks plausible, "cock rock" gets 611 thousand Google hits. JIP | Talk 08:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Oh, please. Per Dbtfz. Danny Lilithborne 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, existing article is well beyond dictionary definition, so using a dicdef as a cite is fine. Widely used term. Kuru talk 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep' please and balls is not appropriate here really Yuckfoo 17:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A notable term that is not a neolgism. — TheKMantalk 21:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, certainly not a neologism. And we certainly have tons of pages on minor musical genres --Deville (Talk) 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not a neologism by any stretch. --Stlemur 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, the article heavily needs references though. -- ReyBrujo 17:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as a notable term. WP:BALLS does not apply here. 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Holistic Centre Group
Advertisement. Non-notable company. No Google hits. Violates WP:CORP Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As nominator. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as pseudoscientific vanispam. —porges(talk) 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no assertion of notability. Metamagician3000 02:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - advertisement, vanity, spam. - Richardcavell 02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per, well, all of the above. Darquis 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - not intended as an advertisement, attempt has been made to be balanced. Though the company is not notable in a grandiouse sense it is important to the communities it serves - is this not important? Google search for people working there eg Clare Badrick or Sarah Kypers. Rather than just advise for deletion, recommend suitable changes. User: yabasto 30/04/06 13:17
- Delete Basically a local clinic, though non-traditional. Not notable. Fan1967 18:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't meet WP:CORP - Politepunk 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why is being local an unallowance for inclusion, and what does one mean by non-traditional? If someone has suggestions for article amendment, please let me know...User:yabasto 23:37, 30 April 2006
- There is a basic standard for inclusion of businesses in Wikipedia (WP:CORP). A local clinic in a small town in Surrey, whether traditional (local doctor or dentist) or otherwise, doesn't meet that standard. Fan1967 00:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well maybe its about time that wikipedia changed it policy and understood that macrocosmic phenomena is supported purely by the microcosm below it. Sieg heil the wikipedia MacDonald supporters...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabasto (talk • contribs)
- Look around your town. How many small businesses as big as yours or bigger? Restaurants, stores, pubs, garages, realtors. At least a few dozen, maybe more. Multiply by at least 1000 to cover the rest of England, multiply again by 10 for US and Canada. Imagine all these businesses get articles. You're looking at a couple hundred thousand entries, and Wikipedia would become the world's largest yellow pages. Fan1967 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well maybe its about time that wikipedia changed it policy and understood that macrocosmic phenomena is supported purely by the microcosm below it. Sieg heil the wikipedia MacDonald supporters...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabasto (talk • contribs)
- There is a basic standard for inclusion of businesses in Wikipedia (WP:CORP). A local clinic in a small town in Surrey, whether traditional (local doctor or dentist) or otherwise, doesn't meet that standard. Fan1967 00:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just some business. nn . This is not the yellow pages.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CORP --Deville (Talk) 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete minor company. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages! Bjelleklang - talk 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 17:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Art De Vany
Vanity article. Should be speedied Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedily Delete As nominator. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Self-admitted copyvio, listed as such. —porges(talk) 01:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you think it should be speedied, just put {{db}} on the article with your reason as the parameter. Or, {{nn-bio}} in this case. Night Gyr 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've tagged it for speedy and notified the uploader. Night Gyr 01:57, 30 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 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Matt Malley
Possible hoax. Note: the original nominator for this afd was User:83.70.64.254, but the process was never completed. Bige1977 01:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete IMDB comes up with Matt Malley as a composer for Shrek 2. Dessydes 10:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment The Matt Malley listed at IMDB is the bass player for Counting Crows, who wrote "Accidentally in Love" for Shrek 2. Clearly he's not a 55-year old martial-arts action-movie actor. Fan1967 01:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Total hoax. This is Steven Seagal's article with someone else's name substituted in. Fan1967 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Complete hoax. Maybe we should start a "Do not edit Wikipedia when stoned" guideline. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - hoax. - Richardcavell 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - hoax. Metamagician3000 02:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as vandalism. Simply adding a hoax may or may not be vandalism. Copying an article verbatim and changing the subject's name is definitely vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this hoax. I agree with Srikeit. > Iridescence < ( talk )( contrib ) 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax --Deville (Talk) 02:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree this is a hoax with not a single reference to probe it is not. -- ReyBrujo 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy keep per nominator's withdrawal and other comments.. --Hetar 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gargamel! (band)
Non-notable band. Probably a vanity article. Google has hits but mostly from blogs & their own site. Change to Keep after article proves its notability & adds citations Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete As nominator.As above --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)- Keep A Google search is not a fair indicator because the character from the Smurfs has thousands of links. This causes links from the band to appear less prominently than they would if the band had a less ambiguous name. The criteria for notability is ambiguous; the band is well-known in Florida, but perhaps not established in other regions. I have added a couple of links to articles about the band, both from established Orlando newspapers. A brief entry seems commensurate with this band's modest level of notoriety. Upon reflection, I have removed the line about the lead singer's "stage presence" to keeps things more NPOV.(Disclosure: I contributed the article. I am not actually in the band nor friends with any of the band members.) Mister Tog 02:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to vote keep on this. Not only did the Orlando newspaper link in the article sway me, but their website claims they were voted best metal band in the Orlando Weekly reader's poll. Media mentions fit WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It would have been nice had the article had sources to show notability before now. Hopefully more will be added soon. Darquis 03:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I added a link to a 1999 article about the Orlando Music Awards, where the band won the "Hard Rock" category. The band also received a positive review in a 2002 edition of Metal Edge magazine. However, the Metal Edge website does not include online content going back that far. A scan of the review is available here (Metal Edge Review) but I assume that posting an image of a copyrighted article would violate one rule or another.Mister Tog 04:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You can cite it, however. Kalkin 14:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, sufficiently cited now; marginally notable regional band. Kuru talk 15:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --Terence Ong 15:47, 30 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.
If it shouldn't be modified, shouldn't the Wiki interface be changed to prevent modifications??!
- 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. -Doc ask? 00:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Air_Disasters_Picture_Gallery
only images, and a duplicate of a section of 'Accidents and incidents in aviation' Marminnetje 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Accidents and incidents in aviation and delete per WP:NOT. Joelito 15:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as above. Jared Preston 20:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete , Images only as a Useful addition to an article. Marminnetje 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this was ever properly listed, relisting for consensus. Night Gyr 01:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete without merging galleries of loosely related free images go on commons, not here, and most of these are unfree. Night Gyr 01:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a repository of image files. Darquis 02:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT per Darquis.--Jersey Devil 04:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete and don't merge. Most of these images are copyrighted. Borisblue 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or transwiki to Commons, Wikipedia is not an image gallery. JIP | Talk 08:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Images not suitable for Commons as most of them are copyrighted. So No Transwiki. --soUmyaSch 08:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete & Don't Transwiki per Soumyasch. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 08:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no transwiking per Soumyasch. --Terence Ong 15:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Gyr --Deville (Talk) 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the images may be used in Accidents and incidents in aviation. -- ReyBrujo 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not an encyclopedia article. gidonb 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete and merge per joelito. These pictures can be found in other places too. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Facty
Originally prodded as neologism, dictdef - that was disputed and there's some discussion on the article talk page. It was left as a candidate for Wiktionary but that hasn't happened in a month and I don't think it's suitable anyway.
- Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Ginkgo100 03:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe transwikify - dicdef. Metamagician3000 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, neodicdef --Deville (Talk) 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doesn't seem a dicdef. -- ReyBrujo 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Waterhead
Delete - Dicdef of term that "has not yet found its way into accepted dictionaries". Does not seem to be a term that people use or have used. Wickethewok 02:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete may even be a hoax - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to Hunter S. Thompson real phrase, nn outside of his usage however. —porges(talk) 06:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a hoax. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, if not a hoax, then a dicdef --Deville (Talk) 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect per Porge. -- ReyBrujo 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if it hasn't even been in modern dictionaries, why would it be here? or wiktionary? wtf... M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (NZ)
Wikipedia is not TV Guide Darquis 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no need for a list of "upcoming" episodes. Wickethewok 02:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Darquis 02:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is one of the most cleancut obvious deletions I've seen in a while. Night Gyr 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Iorek85 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per ^above^.--Jersey Devil 05:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 23skidoo 18:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Streetlight effect
Delete - Looks like original research/pseudo-science. Wickethewok 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOR --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete-Turn this OR off like a streetlight affected by superduper human EM fields. Night Gyr 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Much as I'm a skeptic about paranormal effects like this, if there were some references I might change my vote. --Ginkgo100 03:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - something this dumb-sounding definitely needs reputable sources if it is going to be kept, and I doubt that any are forthcoming. dbtfztalk 03:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No vote at this time. I saw a reference to this a few years ago, except it was called streetlight interference (SLI). Of course, the reference was in Fortean Times, which is hardly peer reviewed, but it may have been a secondary source. I'll browse through the back issues and see if I can find it. --Joelmills 04:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Street light interference, and then probably move to Streetlight interference, a more proper title. This site [2] seems to give some evidence of ongoing paranormal research in this area. --Joelmills 04:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge/move per Joelmills. —porges(talk) 06:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Joelmills, but I'd like to see at least some sort of verification as well. Darquis 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete but here's a Straight Dope article on it: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_047.html Шизомби 02:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I'd say merge as per JoelMills, but there's nothing really here. And it's never a good sign when the article is signed, but signed by two people? --Deville (Talk) 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Neologism/Original research. I'm thinking it has to be a joke, except it didn't seem funny. Peter Grey 05:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Deville. -- ReyBrujo 17:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trickery.net
nn website, alexa ranking of 661,736, only 190 unique Google hits - [3]. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 |
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}} |
- In addition, the forum has only 2,500 members, as the article mentions. Delete. Kimchi.sg 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Eivindt@c 10:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per reasons stated above. — TheKMantalk 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you take this test that the nom cited, and perform it for this somewhat famous company you get 130. So, I think it's safe to say, the test means nothing. --Rob 21:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You misused the test. Zoe's search said "start=180" but came up with nothing past 129. Your test said "start=130" and came up with 130-140, but there are plenty more. Fan1967 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- No so. Try doing Zoe's test, then simply type "Microsoft" over top the text. In both cases the number of "non-similiar" results was well under 200 (provided quotation marks are used). In both cases the actual number of "raw" results was well in excess of the number that Google will allow you to display. The purpose of my point, is that the test fails to reflect the true number of "unique" results. Yes, of course, I know there are more results for Microsoft, then that small number. My point was to show the flaw of the test given by Zoe. No matter how you do the test, Google will never display more then a thousand results. The "non-similiar results" (what Zoe called "unique") is a subset of the first thousand results. For searches with over a thousand "raw" hits, this figure is wortheless. --Rob 22:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Added: Feel free to re-do the test from scratch. Go to Google. Search for "Microsoft" (be sure to include quotes). Now, proceed to the very last page of results. When you get there, you'll see you get the same figure I did. --Rob 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did just as you said and got far more hits than you claim you got. And even if I did, your comments don't address the notability of trickery.net User:Zoe|(talk) 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- How many "unique" hits did you get for "Microsoft"? As we know, they likley have over a billion pages in Google. However, the "unique" figure (which is what you're using) is guarenteed to be under one thousand. My point is that this figure grossly under-represents what's actually out there. Also, if my comments don't address notability, then how did your original comments about google do so? --Rob 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I did just as you said and got far more hits than you claim you got. And even if I did, your comments don't address the notability of trickery.net User:Zoe|(talk) 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, NN by the Alexa ranking --Deville (Talk) 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment subject of this article is of similar notability as this. Currently this article is lacking in some detail, but it is still young and I am sure will be filled out. Internet search engines are not omniscient - despite how you may act as typical Wikipedia power-trippers, you are not experts on this subject; as such you are obviously not aware that this "entity" has gone under several names in its time and so a simple google or alexa search using a single keyword is utterly pointless - for example did you google searches find this or this or this or this or this or this? Thats just a few examples from notable international websites, there are lots more outthere. With time this article will be filled out with more detail.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
- "despite how you may act as typical Wikipedia power-trippers" — please be civil. Attacking others who comment here is not going to raise the chances of this article's survival by a smidgen. "you are obviously not aware that this "entity" has gone under several names in its time" — we cannot just take your word for it. None of the links you've provided mention trickery.net or what it was renamed from/to... is this some sort of trickery on your part? Kimchi.sg 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Again the point is missed! "trickery.net" is what this "entity" is called now - it has had previous names in the past (e.g. "BY Games"), this is why just searching in google is a pretty poor way to decide if something is important or not. Maybe, just maybe, if you dont delete the article other users will be able update the article to show its complete history...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
- The article is still editable during this discussion, you can go add in any information that might help save it from deletion. The only thing you can't edit away is the deletion notice at the top of the page — removing that is a blockable offence. Kimchi.sg 16:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- "None of the links you've provided mention trickery.net or what it was renamed from/to... is this some sort of trickery on your part?" http://itvibe.com/news/1025/—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.94 (talk • contribs)
- Based on information right from this very link, bygames and trickery.net are 2 totally unrelated entities. Sure, trickery.net was founded as a direct result of bygames' closure, but since "bygames, the Internet Gaming Service Provider (GSP) has today closed its doors", how can it be currently closed (which implies it is non-functioning) and at the same time be operating as trickery.net? Kimchi.sg 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well one could say "The" Nazi party (think Hitler) is officially no more, yet there are still Nazi groups operating. Anyway go ahead and delete it if you want - if you do I feel that you are undermining the very ethos of wikipedia by deciding about what should be said (or not) about things you know next to nothing about, instead of letting those that do know about it provide the information, but that appears to be "the wikipedia way" these days - its a shame its come to this really.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
- Comment - I think that earns the article an automatic delete per Godwin's Law :) -- Hirudo 17:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well one could say "The" Nazi party (think Hitler) is officially no more, yet there are still Nazi groups operating. Anyway go ahead and delete it if you want - if you do I feel that you are undermining the very ethos of wikipedia by deciding about what should be said (or not) about things you know next to nothing about, instead of letting those that do know about it provide the information, but that appears to be "the wikipedia way" these days - its a shame its come to this really.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
- Based on information right from this very link, bygames and trickery.net are 2 totally unrelated entities. Sure, trickery.net was founded as a direct result of bygames' closure, but since "bygames, the Internet Gaming Service Provider (GSP) has today closed its doors", how can it be currently closed (which implies it is non-functioning) and at the same time be operating as trickery.net? Kimchi.sg 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Again the point is missed! "trickery.net" is what this "entity" is called now - it has had previous names in the past (e.g. "BY Games"), this is why just searching in google is a pretty poor way to decide if something is important or not. Maybe, just maybe, if you dont delete the article other users will be able update the article to show its complete history...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)
- Delete, clearly fails WP:WEB. ergot 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kimchi. -- ReyBrujo 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete immediately after this discussion is over. --Slgrandson 03:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I would ask regular Wikipedians to hold fire until some of the more notable members of the Wireplay/ByGames/Trickery community have had a chance to update and expand upon the entry, trickery is indeed only a single community but its formation and community history is a tale of the Dot Com era and the rise and fall of notable GSP's, please do not consider the entry upon the merits of trickery.net alone but on the whole tale (yet to be represented) of its formation and history.. Thank you. Burundi.
- Delete per nom. Also, what's the tag for the anon warning again? just for future ref. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Obvious keep per nom's withdrawal and other comments.. --Hetar 07:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Manitowoc Company
Delete - ad placed here by company employee. Prod removed without explanation. Wickethewok 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Change to keep - now presented with actual info, instead of "leading manufacturer of blahblahblah..." i go with keep. Wickethewok 04:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CORP --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- This company has a long and colorful history in this town. Can someone point me to a resource that I can follow to actually allow me to post an entry without retribution(deletion)? Mikeputnam 03:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion is just a form of Wikipedia clean-up. It isn't meant as retribution. Can you give some evidence the company is notable? Read WP:CORP for guidelines. --Ginkgo100 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I believe this meets WP:CORP. It's a notable manufacturer listed on significant financial indices [4] and news stories are written when they file their quarterly reports: [5]. Side note: A restaurant I worked in had two Manitowoc ice machines. They broke down constantly. I'm sure the other stuff they make is great . . . ScottW 04:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep 8,000 full-time employees, publicly traded, company more than 150 years old, revenue into the billions... need I go on? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - notable company (US$3 billion market cap) Outriggr 07:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (England)
Wikipedia is not a TV Guide Darquis 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Darquis 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a TV guide. - Richardcavell 03:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As per my other comments. Iorek85 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 08:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 23skidoo 18:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, DELETE THEM ALL!!! --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. *drew 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. But I do wonder what Simpsons episodes we're getting next in Wales - they must be different, then. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. DS 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (Australia)
This article attempts to provide airtimes and descriptions for The Simpsons episodes airing this week. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (USA). Delete. --Metropolitan90 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The nomination says it all Darquis 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Richardcavell 03:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -As above. Iorek85 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 08:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 23skidoo 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. DS 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes
Wikipedia is not a TV Guide Darquis 02:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Contingent on the four pages linked from here also getting the boot. We don't need a list of pages that are all in violation of WP:NOT Darquis 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a mere list of links to other pages which all violate WP:NOT. --Metropolitan90 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all. Enough said. --Ginkgo100 03:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all - per all the above. Metamagician3000 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As stated above.Iorek85 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I feel this page is unneccessary for Wikipedia and is clearly a violation of the Upcoming Episode section on the Simpsons Archive. Adv193 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per everything above. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 08:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 23skidoo 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. *drew 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Outcast Bandicoot, Crystal Bandicoot
Delete - non-notable fanfic and character from that fanfic. Wickethewok 02:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom Darquis 02:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. BryanG 03:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Rory096 03:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 03:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, the person who created the page tried to remove that afd tag, seriously bad form. [7]--Jersey Devil 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Request ban - User:Crystalbandicoot repeatedly removed AFD notices even after 4 warnings. I believe that warrants a ban. Wickethewok 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)- Already done. Wickethewok 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I must say, getting banned is a poor argument for getting your article kept... Wickethewok 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Richardcavell 03:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Someday there might be a notable fanfic article... but not today, and not this one. Delete, and shame on the creator for poor behaviour during the AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as run of the mill fan-fic. Kuru talk 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. "And the progress can be found on the X.Treme island website or Tara Cross's DeviantART account" says it all. ergot 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Galaxy Army Navy Store
I do not believe this meets the notability requirements for a company as per WP:CORP and Articles for deletion/Precedents (companies). Though not necessarily relevant, the store's URLs http://www.galaxyarmynavy.com/ and http://www.wholesalearmynavy.com/ have respective Alexa rankings of 506,587 and 1,360,048 (Wikipedia:Search engine test). CopperMurdoch 03:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Richardcavell 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no assertion of notability. Metamagician3000 05:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP. Also note that the editor(s) of this article have inserted links to their site in many other pages. This is a clear case of self-promotion. --Elkman - (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I also believe it is a case of self-promotion, but purposely neglected to mention it. -- CopperMurdoch 05:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable & per WP:CORP. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment please see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army/navy_store , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Merchandise_Outlet%2C_Inc. , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny%27s_Surplus , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_%26_Navy , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich%27s_Department_Stores , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack_Pizza ; there is nothing wrong with the fact that our business would like to have a term espeicialy since we are wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers of all these retailers we are listing. See further Note 7, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29 -- sambousak
-
- Comment Just because the Galaxy Army Navy Store is related to other businesses that may be notable does necessarily make it notable. WP:WEB is irrelevant because it deals specifically with web-based content. Note 7 asserts that simply because content is hosted on a well-known site (specifically sites that allow anyone to upload content) does not qualify the content as notable. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with this situation. I and others had suspected this article was a case of self-promotion and now you have said as much. This contrary to section 1.4 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- CopperMurdoch 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment based on what has been submitted from other sources this is a personal attack against this page specifically, no form of advertisement is being made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks -- sambousak
-
- Comment I never said this page was a case of advertisement, I said it was a case of self-promotion. Further, I've already explained why I think the other sources you've cited aren't significant to the discussion. I'm sorry that you feel this is a personal attack, but personal attacks are by definition against a user, not a page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I’m not trying to be rude, but I get the feeling that you are not reading these policies before you refer to them. Referring to policies and citing sources will not affect my view unless they are relevant to the discussion. -- CopperMurdoch 09:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. Note to sambousak: a personal attack is necessarily against a person. Nobody has made any personal attacks. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment based on what has been submitted from other sources this is a personal attack against this page specifically, no form of advertisement is being made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, if you decide to delete the page i would like all the others i have submitted be done the same than no bias actions will be acted upon as being done now -- sambousak
-
- Comment sambousak, again I'm not trying to start a conflict, but it seems as if you are not reading the comments we've left, nevermind the policies themselves. To quote what Stifle, an admin, left above: "a personal attack is necessarily against a person". -- CopperMurdoch 10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Again, there is no personal attack being made here. However, if you wish to nominate other articles for deletion, feel free to do so. See Wikipedia:Deletion process for further information. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EPCST
This article is a list of students who go to a high school. An article about a high school could be acceptable, but this article doesn't even mention what "EPCST" stands for. Needs a complete rewrite and a new title. IceCreamAntisocial 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - it's a webpage that belongs on its on server. - Richardcavell 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a list of students and faculty at a non notable school. Darquis 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT a school's class register. Kimchi.sg 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per User:Kimchi.sg. JIP | Talk 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kimchi --Deville (Talk) 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus - about 66% believe that this content should be somewhere, but several of those assertions are weak, and there is no consensus at all whether to keep or merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seaton Hall
Delete - non-notable campus building. Campuscruft. Wickethewok 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -non-notable collage. - Richardcavell 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The college itself is not notable. The buildings of it, even less so. Darquis 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Slight Merge Kansas State is a non-notable college? What on earth does that means? With 23,182 students enrolled? *scratches head* - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The college itself, no. It's college of architecture? IMO, yeah. Darquis 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge to Kansas State University, how can you call KSU non-notable? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I believe he is referring to KSU's "College of Architecture, etc...". Colleges are contained inside of a university. Wickethewok 03:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Clarification Yes, I meant the college of architecture, not the entire college itself. Darquis 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This building is listed and linked on the on KSU's Wiki page just like all the other buildings in the campus. The College of Architecture is contained inside the greater University just like Arts and Sciences and Enginering, etc... Seaton Court (part of Seaton Hall) is also one of the oldest buildings on campus so how can it be a non-notable building? KSU is one of the 2 largest colleges in Kansas, along with KU, so the University would also be notable. User:Googletree
- Response - clearly the university is notable. However, just because something is contained on a different Wiki does not mean it belongs here. Wickethewok 04:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Response Every major building on campus has its own Wiki page with information and history about the building on it so what is wrong with this building having its own also? User:Googletree
-
-
- Response Yes, but just because those pages have their own articles here on Wiki isn't a justification for this one to have it's own as well. Each page should be looked at on it's own merits. Darquis 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. There seems to be plenty of precedent for buildings like this to be considered notable. Metamagician3000 04:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Several other buildings of the Kansas State University have articles. I don't know if there's a precedent for keeping all college buildings, or only the most notable ones (i.e. those on the National Register of Historic Places or those of particular importance to the university). In the absence of any real strong reason to delete it, though, I don't think it's hurting anything. --Elkman - (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Response A quick Google search of Seaton Hall puts the top 2 results as sites that show pictures or talk about this building and its uses. (discounting the Seton Hall University which is an alternate spelling) User:Googletree 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Response That's hardly valid logic. If you google my Wiki user name, I show up 3 times in the top 10 results. My own ego aside, that doesn't make me notable. Darquis 08:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Response A quick Google search of Seaton Hall puts the top 2 results as sites that show pictures or talk about this building and its uses. (discounting the Seton Hall University which is an alternate spelling) User:Googletree 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Note I have removed some copyvio from the article. Might want to check the other building articles for same. —porges(talk) 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article fails to state how this building is special. ("In 1999 the East wing underwent major renovations... Ebert Mayo Design Group was responsible for the plans. This phase cost $4.1 Million" doesn't really count, since many buildings get upgraded with time.) And lastly, the article seems to focus more on the College of Architecture, Planning, and Design that occupies the building than the building itself.
Merge information on College of Architecture, Planning, and Design into main Kansas State University article and thenDemolish the article. Me runs off to start article on Nanyang Technological University Hall of Residence 12 hoping it will escape AfD... Kimchi.sg 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kimchi.sg (if anything is merged, it will have to be made into a redirect to preserve attribution for the GFDL, though). -- Kjkolb 08:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Informative article. -- JJay 11:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The building itself is too narrow a topic for a Wikipedia article, and the article rambles off into a discussion of the College of Architecture which is located there. --Metropolitan90 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Elkman. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Metropolitan90 -- Hirudo 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Kansas State --Deville (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Smerge to University. --Eivindt@c 09:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Either Keep or Merge, but more towards Keep I've been in it. It's rather large. Larger than Anderson Hall even, and almost the size of Hale Library. By the way, Kansas State University lists plenty of its buildings, and several of them are bluelinked. --Shultz IV 11:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Notable, dare I say famous, building. -Mask
15:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirected to The Southport School, if any more content is needed in that article, follow the redirect back and look in the history. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old Southportonians Association
nn alumni association. A couple of sentences in the school article are sufficient. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Slight Merge - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as nom. Old Boys Associations are not that notable. --Bduke 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. --Roisterer 09:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good article on this alumni association. -- JJay 11:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to The Southport School. David | Talk 11:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge & Redirect per David. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirectßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as per others --Deville (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per above. Let the people who edit the school article determine if this assiociation is notable enough to be mentioned there. -- ReyBrujo 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and severely cut down content - I only created this page as it seemed somebody put some work into it, but it clutters the TSS page. SM247 01:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per all above. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It has enough information for its own article. What is the difference needed in notability to get from all of this information inside a parent article to its own article? The association has significant activities and endeavours and is well established. There seems to currently be a faulty date, 2007 for inception, which needs to be fixed. Ansell 11:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eliza Osgood Vanderbilt
nn wife and daughter. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; no independent notability. MCB 05:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - US-centric ('the nation', assuming that the audience knows of only one). Possibly a hoax. - Richardcavell 06:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Notable only for her relatives, no reason not to mention her there (if necessary) Darquis 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm striving too hard for completion in my own personal project of biographies of the residents of Shelburne, VT. I'll research her life some more, and see if it brings her to notability. Keep for a little while, please. DLaub 12:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non notable. Doubtful if any notable enough info will emerge. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Kimchi.sg 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] February 15, 2003 anti-war protest
waste of server resources to list each and every one of these things, unless we're going to make an article every single time a bunch of non-notable people get together in one place--
ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 04:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Bad faith nom made in violation of WP:POINT.--Jersey Devil 04:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Also violation of WP:Spam, [8] [9]--Jersey Devil 04:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- There is no such policy, and there's nothing wrong with sending a welcome message to a bunch of people, however, editing your comment after someone has already replied to it is considered somewhat unethical--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 04:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such policy, and there's nothing wrong with sending a welcome message to a bunch of people, however, editing your comment after someone has already replied to it is considered somewhat unethical--
- Comment, you do know that we can see every edit you make don't you? It was a call for people to vote on this afd. It was previously this and you removed it here after I pointed it out.--Jersey Devil 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't see any proof of intent there, it was created as a simple welcome template, you really shouldn't assume malice in other people's actions--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any proof of intent there, it was created as a simple welcome template, you really shouldn't assume malice in other people's actions--
- Keep A signifigant day of protest, and not a strong enough case made for the deletion of this article. Darquis 04:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete Stale. non-notable except among limited number of left wing activists Merecat 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to provide notability, it is listed as the largest anti-war protest in history by Guinness World Records [10]--Jersey Devil 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- good, then I look foward to the article on Bowling Ball Stacking that you're about to go out and start--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 04:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note that the preceding comment by ChaplineRVine was changed from referencing elbow licking to the Bowling Ball Stacking link after it was pointed out that the elbow licking article on the Guiness site was stating that elbow licking is a myth. That edit is somewhat ironic given ChaplineRVine's earlier comment that “editing your comment after someone has already replied to it is considered somewhat unethical”. —GrantNeufeld 05:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- good, then I look foward to the article on Bowling Ball Stacking that you're about to go out and start--
- Comment to provide notability, it is listed as the largest anti-war protest in history by Guinness World Records [10]--Jersey Devil 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep No reason presented for deletion. Kotepho 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly notable as it's apparently the largest anti-war protest ever, and also well referenced. Not every anti-war protest would be notable, but I can't think of any good argument saying this one isn't. BryanG 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - huge global event with significant media coverage. FreplySpang (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I too think this is a violation of WP:POINT, as the stated argument for nomination is so specious. By the way, listing elbow licking, which is stated by Guiness to be a myth, "so stop telling us about it", is really not a very effective way of attacking Guiness' certification that the protest was indeed a world record breaker. You grok? --Fuhghettaboutit 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A well written and referenced article about a major event in the anti-war movement. - Iorek85 05:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep this event spanned a significant portion of the globe and was the single largest one-day protest (not just anti-war, but any kind of protest) event in human history. Comment: Nominator has (as of 04:55, 30 April 2006, UTC) one edit outside of user space and this AFD, and the user space edits, aside from his own page, appear to all be related to this AFD. —GrantNeufeld 05:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Shouldn't articles that have achieved good article status be immune from AFD nomination? Also, an article that has successfully completed peer review would similarly seem to be inappropriate for AFD nomination since one could presume that if it merited deletion that would have become apparent during the peer review. —GrantNeufeld 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no reason given to delete, and a good article at that. —porges(talk) 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep let me see, how can I accuse the nominator of WP:POINT without violating WP:AGF or WP:NPA, hmm, sorry I can not. --Eivindt@c 07:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep - not only was this a notable event, the article itself looks more like a candidate for GA than a candidate for AfD. Metamagician3000 07:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, these protests were unusually large (1 million people in London alone) and on a global scale and hence notable. Vashti 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, bad faith nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep agree that there is the spectre of bad faith in this nomination -- Samir
(the scope) धर्म 08:16, 30 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 01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of born-again Christian laypeople/Evidence
List of born-again Christian laypeople has already been deleted following an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of born-again Christian laypeople). This is just OR argumentation on why the article should be kept. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Aside from WP:NOR , do we really need a page of evidence for a list that was itself a fuzzy, nonsense list? Darquis 04:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per statements in previous afd. This is possibly speedy-able under {{db-repost}}; excepting the qualifier, by context, appears to be the same previously deleted text.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe. Reyk YO! 06:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe. -- ConDemTalk 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, if the parent article is gone, so should this be --Deville (Talk) 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, could be speedy per CSD:G4. -- ReyBrujo 16:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, per WP:POINT, and per what I said in the original AfD regarding "laypeople" being a word with several possible definitions (although I had always understood it to just mean anyone other than clergy). ergot 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Royal Air Force aircraft wings
Non-notable list; aprox 300 entries with only 1 working internal link (all the rest are redlinks). Argon233 T C @ ∉ 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely a nn list. While we're at it, I'm gonna tag the working internal link, nothing notable there either. Darquis 04:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - It was only created 11 days ago. Could we give it a chance to become notable? It could be worthwhile. - Richardcavell 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment The proper course of action, as I understand it, should have been to build it in user space so it was up to standard. Of course, this being a list of links, that may never have happened. Perhaps if some of the individual wings had pages that met Wiki standards, some sort of category or list might be in order. Darquis 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, listcruft. Kimchi.sg 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- JJay 11:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep one of the explicit purposes of lists is to show up redlinks to articles that need creating. Added to which, the list is in and of itself interesting. 88.107.217.217 23:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete Definitely nn. Listcruft. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Start at the Royal Air Force article, if such article becomes too big continue in an explained list, and if such list becomes too big, just then make a separate article per every wing. -- ReyBrujo 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No. 249 Wing RAF
Non notable Darquis 04:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable stub with little likelyhood of being expanded further. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉ 05:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable Darquis 07:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn stub. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Start at the Royal Air Force article, if such article becomes too big continue in an explained list, and if such list becomes too big, just then make a separate article per every wing. -- ReyBrujo 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kuroro Lucifer
Kuroro Lucifer is a fictional character from Hunter × Hunter, and is associated with the group Generi Ryodan. The content on this page has been put into the Genei Ryodan page, making this page redundant. Yaksha 04:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect unless someone really feels like doing a history merge. Kotepho 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak Merge and Redirect to Hunter × Hunter characters. The list isn't big enough to justify separating a character from the list, and there are just too few Google hits for the character. Although I am willing to change to Keep. -- ReyBrujo 16:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Changing vote toDeleteRedirect, as indeed the contents are already in Genei Ryodan. -- ReyBrujo 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)- Redirect per above. ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Raymond E. Shaw Elementary School
Non notable elementary school (it's generally accepted that only high schools are automatically notable; other schools would have to be notable for another reason than just being a school to have articles). Rory096 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no sign of notability. --Ajdz 05:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable. Darquis 08:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good article on this school. -- JJay 11:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, I live about 6 houses away from this school. I can't think of anything special about it, but this is more information than I knew about it, and I grew up here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- All the more reason to keep the article since it is highly informative, even for locals such as yourself. -- JJay 14:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It may be a good article on the school, but it's still not notable. No claim to notability apart from someone getting into a state spelling bee. ConDemTalk 13:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per general precedent for schools. The nominator's statement is clearly false. The clear precedent for a year is to keep *all* verifiable real K-12 schools, including elementaries. There are few exceptions in the last year. See 2006 AFD results and 2005 AFD results. Typically, the deletes are for copyvios or non-verifiability (such as with some non-accredited schools); *not* "notability", even for elementaries. Deletion of schools is definately not "generally accepted".--Rob 15:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Is there any specific wiki policy or project that says that schools themselves are automatically notable? I cannot dispute this is a well written article, but I fail to see any notability, outside "it's a school" (outside the accomplishments of one student, not nearly enough to establish the school in that manner either). I have difficulty seeing the need to have articles on non-notable subjects, particularly ones that will be of such a large volume (as there are thousands of schools in the United States alone). Darquis 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why does a school need more of an explanation than a tiny township, or anything else, that is accepted as a group. The school is notable, but for similiar reasons, as any other school is. --Rob 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I didn't say any of those other things doesn't need an explanation on their notability either. Just because other articles on Wikipedia do it doesn't mean this one can. I don't see "it's a school" addressing any concerns of notability. Darquis 23:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Plenty of information on the school, and as per above re: notability. Karlusss 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- keep please nomination is false and this is a important school Yuckfoo 17:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as per precedent for schools. Also, the article is very good and verifiable. Carioca 21:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as notable as the average elementary school (i.e., nn). Carlossuarez46 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per the existing precedent to keep schools and the above regarding notability. Yamaguchi先生 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with having this. Sumahoy 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if a town in Oregon with a total population of 3 gets an article and is notable.... this certainly is. ALKIVAR™ 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Another round of this long school debate. (Cheer up, it was worse before). Although an article on every school would just about double the number of articles we have, and creating such articles is not a priority for me, the precedent on elementary schools is to keep them if the article is reasonable, with the option of merging if it's a stub. Deleted school articles are usually due to utter lack of content (e.g. "A very nice school"), being an attack page, or unverifiable. For some reason, even articles which consist of nothing more than the address and telephone number are being kept. With that clear precedent in mind here, I see no reason to be inconsistent with this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 17:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Manohar-Swaminathan Hypothesis
this article is nonsense, and does not describe a real hypothesis. EsonLinji 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Bad-joke-ise - it's actually quite amusing. Metamagician3000 07:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Universal Law of Bad Breath? I'm not sure if this should go to Bad Jokes or be deleted, but it's quite obvious it shouldn't remain as an article as such. Darquis 08:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy BJAODN, this is funny, but the longer it remains undeleted the more bad breath it generates. Kimchi.sg 08:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense. — TheKMantalk 20:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:BALLS, but BJAODN if people are laughing --Deville (Talk) 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asevicius
A horrible article about a Lithuanian. I would clean it up if it was worth it. His only claim to notability - serving in army and being a professor. Same spam article was posted on Lithuanian Wikipedia. Renata 18:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it has no Ghits outside wikipedia. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
KeepIt's had 5 days of a cleanup tag on Vikipediją - Laisvąją enciklopediją and has had various editors make contributions - so they obviously feel he's notable enough to improve. That said, it seems to be largely a family article - for its source data see the free French site asevich/page principale.htm Dlyons493 Talk 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)- Comment: that's because lt WP has lower standards for inclusion of Lithuanians. Renata 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no claims of notability, not verifyed. --Eivindt@c 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain Can we get a readership count on his textbooks? If deleted, we ought to allow the Lithuanians to recreate with translation, as tehir article probably explains more. JeffBurdges 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. This discussion has not yielded anything looking remotely like a reliable source - instead we have a lot of hot air, some Geocities-level websites mostly consisting of just the lyrics and barely any pretense by those clamouring for keep that this article meets Wikipedia policy. The article itself starts off with an unsourced claim "It was a huge hit", followed by a copyright-violating lyric transcript, followed by nationalistic original thought: "It can serve as an illustrative example of famous Serbian proud defiance (srpski inat) with which Serbs have resisted and eventually defeated many mighty enemies through centuries - Turks, Austro-Hungarians, Germans, and were now applying the same unashamed attitude of defiance towards mighty NATO". It's never going to be an acceptable encyclopaedia article, and this discussion has proven that while ably demonstrating why AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song)
The song is not notable enough to have its own article. Plus the translation is atrocious, and there is no information about copyright issues.
Why would I need copyrights?I just wrote down the words of the song,like in this case Keep Ya Head Up!! If you allowed that song,why wouldn`t you allow thi song,that is maybe the most famous Satrirical war song in 90sDzoni 07:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable song by a non-notable band. — TheKMantalk 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the band seems to fail WP:MUSIC, thus song is non notable. -- ReyBrujo 06:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEPThis is very famous song in Balkans,you cant find a single Serbian,Croatian,Bosnian or Macedonian that have not heard it.Please dont delete itDzoni 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but add more context and explain how important and ironic it is, given the nature of the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. It is an example of the famous "serbian spite" that Serbs are so proud of. Other examples could be brought in. Profnjm 00:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --serbiana - talk 22:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - this was one of the most popular songs during the bombings, along with others (Ja sam ja for example). In fact, we should make an article about the Indeksovici. And remember, if something isn't significant to the US, it doesn't mean it shouldn't belong here. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 02:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- If it was so popular, how come the entry on Serbian wikipedia about this band does not mention it? Check sr:Индексовци. What is the title of this song in Serbian, anyway? That would be a useful piece of information to include in the article, don't you think? Especially since a search for Индексовци AND 117 on Google returns no hits. Balcer 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Because Indekosovci was group that also had many satrirical songs about Milosevic ,so they were pretty much banned from all TV stations.But thi particural song was played all over the country,and you couldn`t find A SINGLE SERB THAT NEVER HEARD IT!!! Its very famous even outside Serbia.
Also I should just mention such classics as "Ja sam Ja",those are also even more popular songs by Indeksovci.
Blacer,you should ask someone who knows Serbian to help you with that Google search,you will find planty of "return hits".Dzoni 04:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, let me ask you then. What was the title of this song in Serbian? Balcer 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to give you few links to this song:::::::: http://www.tirova.com/glasba/kondor_pada.htm http://www.ptt.yu/korisnici/m/a/makso/new_page_2.htm http://members.fortunecity.com/jupi2/elcondor.htm http://www.vicevi.net/index.php/haag.com/index.php?st=komentar&IDvic=34537
IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU? Name of the song in Serbian is "EL KONDOR PADA".
p.s.Balcer,I have done told you that you are wrong about Lepper and now we saw that you was wrong.Now you are wrong again.You should think about quiting WikipediaDzoni 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. That should have been provided in the first place. Now please explain how "El Condor Pada" translates to "Pilot of invisible F-117-a". Balcer 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Anyway, if the article is moved to a title which is the actual translation of the Serbian title, if the links to the Serbian text you listed above are added as external links (so that others can check the translation), and if the popularity of this song is demonstrated with at least a few sources, I will withdraw my delete vote. Wikipedia is not a lexicon of song lyrics, and the song lyrics that it has articles about must be shown to be notable. Balcer 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok,I changed name to "El Condor Pada",so now there is a prove that its very famous song.Dzoni 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless a citation can be given that shows its popularity. --cholmes75 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - what does it mean to u Cholmes when it would be in language u dont understand?? Luka Jačov 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This shouldn't be deleted but it needs more info. It is already added as trivia in the F-117 Nighthawk wiki page. Diamantidis 4 May 2006
- Strong KeepJamal Curtis 11:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: User's only contribution is this vote. -- ReyBrujo 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The first provided link is a 404. I don't think the next two probe its notability, it is just the uploaded lyrics. I am unsure about the last one, it looks like a forum. So far, I am keeping my delete vote as there is no enough evidence yet. Also, is the song in the serbian Wikipedia? -- ReyBrujo 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
yes,but 2 link are Serban,one is Slovenian and one is English.Tha only means that song was popular even outside of Serbia.Ask any Serb if he heard it,everyone did. I can hardly find a web site that have an article about the song,but not a single SErbian song got articles about it on the internet,does that mean that there is no nobale Serbian songs? Or that just means that they never made it to Internet,but are still famous?Dzoni 12:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Yes song realy exist. I herad for it. --Jovanvb 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, Indeksovci would be Indexovo radio pozorište (or Index's radio theater in English). They where/are an acting company, not a music band. Title of the song is play on the title of El Condor Pasa (to which music it is sang) (padati - to fall, pada - falls, so El Condor Pada == El Condor Falls). Should the article be kept? Maybe, but absolutely not in this form - this way it is probably copyvio, or very close to it. --Branislav Jovanovic 21:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep --GTubio 22:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I come from Balkans but never ever heard anything about this song. I think it is not notable enough to have its own article. Just maybe few people heard about it don’t mean it should have its own encyclopedic article. Most of the users who vote to keep this article were asked from Dzoni to do so, some examples: Luka Jačov, serbiana, Lord Eru, Jovanvb. Just look at their discussions and you will see that. Actually the user Dzoni wrote that in Serbian and not in English language. I don’t think that is fair.--Mig11 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Who are you to think,siptarcino smrdljiva mamu ti jebem.who gives a damn what you think.Dumb bastard.This is democracy,MOST PEOPLE VOTED STAY,SO NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOUR STUPID ALBANIAN OPINIONDzoni 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone else getting tired of Dzoni's abusive behavior during this vote? I certainly am. Balcer 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am now just translating what Dzoni wrote to me in Serbian: “siptarcino smrdljiva mamu ti jebem”. That means in English: “stinky Albanian fuck your mother”. This user is attacking me personally. His answer has nothing to do with my argumentations. He is actually mad, that I understand his mother language. He is mad that I am Albanian. This user has no behaviour. Dear administrators, please do something about this user! His behaviour is not acceptable for Wikipedia!!!!
- And to you Dzoni:You are trying to tell me what democracy means?!--Mig11 16:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Kris12 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC) OK this is not the place for verbal abuse.
I am a Serb, ni ja ne volim Šiptare ali matori, jebiga nemoj ovde da vredjaš. Reci mi gde mogu da skinem mp3 El Kondor Pada? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris12 (talk • contribs) .
-
- This is getting very interesting. Also the Kris12 don’t like Albanians: he wrote in Serbian:” ni ja ne volim Šiptare”, that means in English that he also don’t like Albanian people. He used a nationalistic Serbian term for Albanians! He and user Dzoni seem to have an Albaniophobia! I don’t understand what this discussion has to do with their nationalistic opinions!!
- Dzoni wrote to Kris12 how to vote here! He told him to vote with "Strong Keep" for this article (please see under Usluga, means Favour in English from Serbian: here).
- This is really getting ridiculous. Almost 100% of people who voted to keep this article were told from user Dzoni to do so! Their votes should not be accepted!--Mig11 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, please people, be civil and no personal attacks. Unluckily, something like this has happened before (HolyRomanEmperor RFA, in example). It is not really wrong to tell others that a determined article is up for deletion (some other groups post a note about the AFD in their local country portal, in example). What is wrong is coming here and vote to keep or delete just because someone else told you to do it in order to keep an article you wrote and/or about your country. I believe this AFD lost its neutral point of view somewhere. -- ReyBrujo 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldnt agree that we voted because someone told us to vote.We all explained our votes.
Anyway,what I dont see is,why would this Albanians opinion be important in thi case.He can not possible be honest and objective on this subject,so he should be banned from voting here. Also,"Siptar" is not offensive,because thats how they call themselves.
Kris12 have not said anything offensive,I did said what I mean of Siptars,but since I was officialy warned on my talk page that I will be banned,I will try not to use those words again.
And yes ReyBrujo,you got some nerves to say that we did not explained our votes.You was the one to said only few words with your first vote:"Song is not notable". We proved that song is VERY notable,so it would only be fair for you to apologise and change your vote.Off course,you can continue ignoring the facts...
Kris,pesma moze da se skine na jednom od ovih sajtova za koje sam dao linkove na ovoj strani,a ako ne rade onda mogu ja da ti posaljemDzoni 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment to Dzoni: everybody in Balkans knows what "siptari" means und why the Serbian propaganda uses this. Don’t tell as lies. You are not an angel. You insulted people here. And everyone’s opinion counts in Wikipedia, not just the Serbian one, even an opinion of Albanians, whether you like it or not. Sorry to disappoint you. This is an free encyclopedia. --Bet 0 11:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment to Bet 0: Stop lying,we all know that you call yourselves Siptars.Albanians from Kosovo call them selves Siptars,so you should thank me for calling you that way.It is not insult in any way,but how would you know,since you said you dont speak Serbian.Dzoni 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There have been 4 keep votes that only have the vote, not even a small explanation of why the song should be kept. As for my vote, I wrote the band seems to fail WP:MUSIC, thus song is non notable. That is explanation enough, unless you want me to tell check every of the WP:MUSIC the band does fail. As for probing, as far as I see in this thread, no, nothing was probed. You provided four links, and I already explained why notability hasn't been probed:
- http://www.tirova.com/glasba/kondor_pada.htm – broken link, 404
- http://www.ptt.yu/korisnici/m/a/makso/new_page_2.htm – NN personal page [26], it is like any geocities page.
- http://members.fortunecity.com/jupi2/elcondor.htm – NN personal page [27], just like geocities.com, anyone can get an account
- http://www.vicevi.net/index.php/haag.com/index.php?st=komentar&IDvic=34537 – Forums are not enough evidence to probe notability, anyone with an account can post in a forum.
- Does the Serbian Wikipedia have a page about this song? If not, it should not be in this version of Wikipedia. If so, it may provide us information as to how important this song is. There is no serious reference thus far about why this song should be kept in Wikipedia. Please provide a serious link, not just free accounts and forums. -- ReyBrujo 18:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. -Mask 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as copyright violation. Perhaps a fraction of the lyrics could be used along with commentary about them. It would be best if we had the original as well as the translated parts, though. Rmhermen 19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I voted keep, with some suggestions. I think the song has merit as an entry, given what else gets its own entry on Wikipedia. I'm no friend of Dzoni. He's a racist pig. He's an anti-semite. He imagined that I'm Jewish and then spewed his anti-Semitic vitriol on me. I'm not Jewish, I'm not Serbian. I'm...nevermind. He's a troll, basically. But I do think the entry has merit, and ... he did ask me to vote for it. Strange, eh? But so be it. Profnjm 19:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Profnjm,just because I dont like Zionists-Im a pig?!?!You are calling me a pig just because I pointed out that you can be blocked for further vandalising article about Dobrica Cosic!
You should thank me that I warned you,otherwise you would`ve probably been banned by now.Dzoni 20:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. Although it has a strong POV, it illustrates one wiev of the events. Still, original lyrics should be included. And for notability, I've heard of it and I am not form Serbia. The article should also give more references. --Tone 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Unless it is public domain, lyrics can't be included in the article per song guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 00:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki lyrics and Keep Transwiki the lyrics if they are Public Domain. The song seems to have high notability in the area it is about. The fact that americans have not heard of it before this AfD does not prove "non-notability". Need to expand on the article with respect to the precursors to the song being written and its effects on society. Ansell 07:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - No name group with no name song, nothing that the world should hear about it. Did this song even have an nr.1 place in any Serbian top list? And to Serbian nationalists here: what happened with the pilot after his plane was "shot down”? Did the Serbian Army catch him? Was he in a Serbian jail? Delete, Wiki doesn’t need such nationalistic songs. --Bet 0 10:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
"Delete, Wiki doesn't need such nationalistic songs" -- is that really the criterion for inclusion? Nationalistic materials need not apply? As if nationalism isn't the single most destructive phenomenon of the past 150 years? That comment doesn't wash. Profnjm 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
ARTICLE WAS MAJORLY IMPROVED TODAY,I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE WHO VOTED DELETE(except Bet 0 and Mig 11)TO LOOK AT THE ARTICLE AGAIN,I BELIEVE THAT THEN ALL OF YOU WILL CHANGE YOUR VOTES AND THIS VOTING CAN BE CLOSED ONCE AND FOR ALL.Dzoni 13:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am keeping my delete vote until: 1. Notability of the song is established. Right now it is not even mentioned at all in Serbian Wikipedia's entry about this band sr:Индексовци. 2. copyright issues are resolved. Do we have permission from the owners of the copyright to the song to include it in its entirety in Wikipedia? Balcer 14:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Do we have permission for Keep Ya Head Up or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_i_Gradiska_stara.
-
- I dont think so.Dzoni 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This is exactly why in Keep Ya Head Up the lyrics are not included in the article! We don't need a copyright permission to have an article about the song, but we do need it for the lyrics. As for Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara, that one to me looks like an excellent candidate for deletion, on the same grounds as this one. Balcer 14:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Or Danke Deuchland.....there are hundreds of examples all over the Wikipedia.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The difference is that El Condor Pada really is important and notable song that should stay.Dzoni 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We still look forward to some evidence of that, not just your opinion. Balcer 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- All Serbs,Croats and Slovenians on here voted "Keep" and even one Greek vote.All of them heard of it.Theres not a single Serb that never heard of it.Thats enough for "keep"Dzoni 14:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
comment To all Serbians voting "keep": Why is there still no link to a Serbian version of this article? -- Austrian 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Having reconsidered, this article would fit better as a part of an (yet unexisting) article Anti-NATO propaganda in Serbia in 1999 (or similar titled). As for my previous post here, the original lyrics is now included but as some users pointed out, there might be a copyright violation so keep just an exemplary section or the lyrics included (decide for yourself what part). --Tone 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Andrew D. Hsu
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Please sign your posts on this page by adding You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Vanity page StoatBringer 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This page meets the criteria for notability (famous author with over 5000 books in print and readers). - Solaroid
I don't see any reason for it being a vanity page. It meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and is unbiased. - Solaroid 23:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think he's a signfigant person, but the article is in need of some cleanup. Darquis 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you tell me what part of the article needs to be cleaned up? I'd like to get the deletion consideration notice removed. Solaroid 23:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't think merely being a young prodigy is sufficient grounds for notability. I think this is more "potentially notable", and Wikipedia will be here if or when that happens. As far as being an author his book was only written in Chinese (thus inaccessible to most readers of this encyclopedia) and allegedly sold 50,000 copies which is a lot but not enough in my opinion to make him notable as most best-sellers tend to get up into the millions. — GT 01:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep One of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is to be a published author with over 5000 readers or copies in print. 50000 copies in taiwan is a lot - remember that the taiwan market is much smaller than that forr the US. Its not the language of the book, but the influence that counts. with so many people inspired and influenced by this person, it would be unwise not to include him - it would be a disservice to the community if the entry is not included. Many millions of chinese people also read wikipedia! Andrew Hsu is a great inspiration for thousands of children, and is probably the most significant Hsu on wikipedia. If he's not included, why should those others be? his wco organization has already helped thousands of children in poor countries. He is definitely notable and not just "potentially notable." Royal993 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is the user's first edit and he may be a sockpuppet of Solaroid. In any event I see no citation for the sales figures so dig them up or base your argument on something else. — GT 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I came from korea one year ago, and when I was in korea, I saw a news report on Andrew hsu on national MBC tv. I know that he has helped a lot of young people Jasonkim
- This too is the user's first edit. Newly-created accounts (especially those created after this article was nominated for deletion) are generally ignored in this process so if this is the same user making all of them, please don't bother. — GT 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. From the four scannings presented in the article (China Times, Liberty Times, Ming Sheng Daily and United Daily News), three are notable newspapers with article in Wikipedia. However, since I can't read them, I cannot see if they help fulfill the latest biography notability point in WP:BIO for people still alive. -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with GT, this is someone who at some point may potentially be notable, but at this point he isn't. The vanity and sockpuppetry doesn't help. IrishGuy 06:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- First of all, I did not do any sockpuppetting. You have your right to your own opinion or guess, but you shouldn't accuse me randomly. Irishguy, you have said the person is not notable right now, and what grounds do you have for that? GT has said "merely being a young prodigy is not grounds for notability", and I agree. But I am not proposing notability on these grounds. He is a published author with much more than Wikipedia's criterion, which is easily verified through the publisher. He clearly meets Wikipedia's guidelines of "large fan base, name recognition, published a book with an audience of over 5000, autobiography". The guidelines does not say what language the book should be published in. You are entitled to your opinion, but the guidelines are very clear and straightforward.Solaroid 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Can you please get some documentation for your sales figures? We can't take your word for it. — GT 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please point out where I accused you of sockpuppetry. I simply noted that there have been a couple of newly created accounts showing up here to vote. That usually denotes sockpuppetry...although I never said that you specifically were responsible for it. As for the rest, I am familiar with the guidelines. What I am less clear on is any verifiable references for what you claim. IrishGuy 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- To me, “Newly-created accounts” means kids or children or early teens. What you said means, kids’ opinions are generally ignored in the process. That is very true in this world. Your comment are so familiar, but that doesn’t make it right. That is what the world children’s organization is doing, to assert the rights of poor children in the world. Andrew Hsu inspired us. This is your place, you can decide to keep or delete, but don’t say my opinion should be ignored. Bye. Jasonkim
-
-
- What newly created accounts is refering to is just that...an account with no prior editing history. It could be a sockpuppet. It has absolutely nothing to do with age. IrishGuy 01:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- no. you missed my point. What I am saying is, just because you’ve been here longer doesn’t make you more right than me. My opinion should carry the same weight as your opinion. Jasonkim
-
- Comment - Keep?. I personally don't see any reason why this is a vanity page. For notability, the article is informative and well-researched, with media reports like CBS, KOMO4, Time for Kids, etc. If you google the english name of Fervent Global Love of Lives, you get 296,000 hits, but if you search for the Chinese name (copy and pasted off a site in Google), I got 7 million results, so this is a notable award. He also seems to fulfill WP:BIO, with multiple features in national newspapers, as his article claims. But is it reasonable to ask for proof of sales figures? Exactly how would the user who created this page go about doing so? Also, I don't see people asking other authors for this. Kr0nnik 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Kr0nnik's account was created today. His edits so far consist of editing the pages of people named Hsu, nominating pages for AfD, voting on some existing AfD's, and a singular edit to his user page, probably so the link to his username wouldn't be red when he finally came here. Despite this user's intentions I've never seen such a clear (yet creative) sockpuppet.
Anyway, to address your points, like I said we simply cannot just take your word for it that he has sold that many books and that his WCO organization has been as successful as claimed (and everything else for that matter). Wikipedia policy prohibits original research and requires verifiability with reliable sources. And while Andrew's story and accomplishments might make a very good topic for feature pieces in news sources, I still am not seeing any evidence from you that he is notable enough to be written about here. — GT 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Are you the same person who also accused me of socket puppet? to you,if people are new and have different opinions from yours, then they are a sockepuppet. You ask for evidence when you accuse other people without evidence? you ask for "veriafiability from reliable soruces." where is your verifiability from reliable sources when you accuse other people? for one thing, I know you're wrong about me being a sockpuppet. the newspapers that are in andrew's article Are reliable sources. Tell me that other authors in wikipedia also supply verifiability from reliable sources of sales figures. you can't! Jasonkim
-
- Everyone is held to the same standards here. No exception is being made for this article. Do the newspaper articles discuss his book sales or otherwise demonstrate his notability? I don't read Chinese so I don't know. Just being mentioned in a newspaper doesn't really count, especially when they are feature pieces and not real news. — GT 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think you protest too much. What are the chances that you created a Wiki account and knew immeditiately to come here and vote on this? This AfD is the only thing you have made any edits on at all. That doesn't strike you as more than a little curious?IrishGuy 07:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Kr0nnik's account was created today. His edits so far consist of editing the pages of people named Hsu, nominating pages for AfD, voting on some existing AfD's, and a singular edit to his user page, probably so the link to his username wouldn't be red when he finally came here. Despite this user's intentions I've never seen such a clear (yet creative) sockpuppet.
- Delete. Not really notable for anything except that he may be in the future. A child prodigy is not enough to warrant notability, and the article is overstuffed with unimportant things that he has done. (Notorious4life 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC))
- Also, there are an unsual amount of recently created username votes on this discussion, and that does arouse the suspicion of sockpuppetry; their votes should surely be weighed less according to the warning template. (Notorious4life 04:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC))
- I just would like to ask everyone here to go to see all entries in Hsu and honestly ask yourself how many of them are more significant or notable than this person. If they can be listed, why can’t he be. It doesn’t make sense.
- The guideline says
- 1. fan base: If the box on andrewhsu.com titled "ANDREW'S TAIWAN BOOK TOUR" (you have to scroll down) doesn't give evidence of a "large fan base,” what does? Again, how many in Hsu entries have a fan base such as this? They are listed.
- 2. book sales: which authors who are listed actually supply documentation on the sales figure of their books? Why ask for it from just one person? That is unfair.
- I would like to make one thing real clear here. I did not send out any emails to anyone regarding this discussion forum. If I did, the site would be filled with many comments, I am sure.
- I trust that the editors in wikipedia are fair, so I'll rest my case and leave this with them. Thank you. Solaroid
- Comment Other articles aren't relevant. What is relevant is whether or not this subject is notable...and all signs point to no. If the other articles that you refer to have problems, then by all means, AfD them. But it has no bearing on this AfD.IrishGuy 07:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Solaroid, your argument is ridiculous and very humorous. By your logic, every thing in the world should be included in Wikipedia as long as it is not worse than the worst article. Comparing other articles is a terrible way of defending the importance of an article. You cannot make significance out of an article by pointing out articles that may be worst than it. Your befuddling comments are only antagonizing more people to vote for deletion. (Notorious4life 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC))
- Delete per nom, and a sockpuppet blitz is always a bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Google search does not turn up favourable results, autobiography sales figures are ambiguous. The article has been pumped up with facts that are irrelevant to his notability. While I do appreciate the enthusiasm and loyalty of the user(s) who have been creating accounts on Wikipedia to vote on this AfD, please note that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. The article can always be recreated if the subject gains more notability in future. — Tangotango 04:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
