Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 15

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Gordon Lawrence

Tagged as db-attack, which it seems to do, but not without reason. Notability? Open to question. A difficult one. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A6. Seems to disparage its subject as {{db-attack}} says. This article screams, "This guy is a freaking pervert who leads an awful life." Royal Blue 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A6. Same as above. Launch board for personal attacks and so forth. An apparently "sicko" article belongs in the local paper, not an encyclopedia. --Jay(Reply) 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Father Paul Shanley has a whole article on him, if Protestant pastor pedo articles are swept under the rug this will indicate bias on WP Ruby 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it will not. If an article about a "Protestant pastor pedo" who received the same amount of press attention is swept under the rug, then it will indicate the same thing. Like it or not, notability is a criterion taken into account for articles, and like it or not, individual cases of pedophilia, no matter how reprehensible, aren't reaching the levels of infamy achieved by the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal. I Google "Paul Shanley" and get 116,000 hits. I Google "Roy Gordon Lawrence" and get ... ten. The first of which is Wikipedia's own article. Plus... when you say Paul Shanley has "a whole article" on him, you're referring to two paragraphs and one external link. How many paragraphs are we devoting to Roy Gordon Lawrence? How many of them are merited? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, the lengths of the articles seems to be correlated to the number of offenses committed. Ruby 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there, but the difference between Shanley and Lawrence is that Shanley was a little more notable, and was a "prominent figure" in a greater Boston scandal (and we just love scandals), whereas Lawrence, although according to allegations is as equally troubled, is a little less notable. It is the first I'm hearing of him anyways, and I'm close enough to Ottawa. --Jay(Reply) 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep delete and strong Cleanup. Needs some NPOVing as noted above, including axing a several-hundred-word paragraph. Appears substantially documented, but I haven't dug into whether effects and reporting were widespread, whether the case had important influence on broader investigations, and so forth. "Category:Protestant pastor pedophiles" is neither a reason to keep nor a reason to delete, and we should try to keep our own POV's out of the question. WP:V? WP:Importance? (During edit conflict, changed leaning-vote per Master Jay.) Barno 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• (I apologize if editing in wrong place) - my official notes were put in the Talk page for that article. JzG is correct in that this is a difficult one. There are some factual things here. Roy Gordon Lawrence was charged, and served prison time. Those articles did appear in the paper. Most of the history (as in things 10+ years ago), though questionable POV, are true... the biggest criteria of db-attack are the comments regarding recent history (that Roy Gordon Lawrence is going to reoffend, won't admit to certain things, unrepentant, that he formed his own church, etc.) These things are 100% POV. The author can make statements to back up his POV, but there are other POVs (contraty to the authors POV) which can be backed up. Bottom line... this has "future battleground" written all over it. I just don't see its value or place on Wikipedia. Even just looking at the history of Roy Gordon Lawrence --Does Wikipedia want to become a criminal records database? This screams of an attack page, under the guise of public informance. This isn't about pedophilia (and indeed such is horrible!), this is about creating a soapbox and trying to taint the image of people associated with Roy Gordon Lawrence today (10+ years after the crimes) .. which in this case includes a local church that Roy Gordon Lawrence attends. Surely Wikipedia is not the place for this? Andyru
• Keep as notable.Blnguyen 04:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on his 1991 arrest as a police officer, which legitimately received signficant public interest and concern, with national media coverage. That alone made him a public figure and a notable person (not famous, not notorious, but notable). The 2004 Church stuff adds to his notability, and renews his status as a public figure. --Rob 05:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup unsourced assertions. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup as the article is very POV and some of the grammar and syntax fall below the standards set for WP articles.  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 08:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Request: Perhaps an admin could delete the history of the article, to remove the prior attack text, and what looked like copyvio from newspaper stories. --Rob 12:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Bobby1011 14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Englishrose 14:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely removed unsourced assertions. (!) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this personal attack. I know this guy and how hard it is for him to move on with his life. RandM, 15Feb06

• Delete per nom... ultimately just not notable enough.--Isotope23 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep Mccready 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this really nasty personal attack. This man is one of thousands who will find it impossible to get on with a rebuilt (normal) life because of vindictive articles like this. AndyB, 15Feb06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.172.9 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete this is malicious personal attack. Mr. Lawrence has not only paid his debt but met, and continues to meet, all the court appointed requirements. The change in his life should be an example to others who have been forgiven, who should forgive also, and let him live his new life. Feb 15/06.
  • Comment: If Saddam Hussein claims to have sworn off massacres and poison gas attacks, does that mean that Wikipedia (or at least Christian WP editors) "should forgive" him and therefore should delete articles about his verified past activities? I'm not saying this person's history is equivalent to Saddam's; I'm just saying we should use WP's standards of verifiability and importance, rather than deleting the article because its side effects may include the unhappy consequences of this person's own actions. Barno 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Point well made Barno! I would reluctantly admit that there is valid argument where the article could be kept to the "historical" elements of Roy Gordon Lawrence's past in a NPOV format. (Though, I do believe even that would result in a bit of a battleground with the Author.) The main reason this was tagged as db-attack is that this author is well known for the spreading of "dirt" on Roy Gordon Lawrence in many forums (distribution lists, letters, now Wikipedia, etc.). It is done under the guise of public informance (akin to a "sex offender registry" ... "who's in your neighborhood" ... "he current lives here" ... "he goes to church there" scenario).

• • • Comment: Per WP:OWN, nobody except the Wikipedia owns an article once it's submitted. If you've correctly characterized the article's author, he'll have to accept the community's NPOVing cuts, or persuade editors that his alternative edits would meet all WP policies. ... However, if by capitalized "Author" you meant YHWH, the Father in the Christian Trinity, then I'm not prepared for "a bit of a battleground with the Author" unless He can post to the WP talk pages. Barno 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all. Ardenn 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The author is using this article as a soapbox to mount a savage attack on a man that he victimized. Granted, Mr. Lawrence has an unsavory past. However, the author is intent on using any medium as a soapbox to attack Mr. Lawrence with allegations about more recent behavior that are untrue and designed to destroy him. Even if the article is cleaned up, will the History page still show the original article that is clearly libelous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosiam (talk • contribs) .
• Comment: I have moved the disruptive talk at the top of the page. If anybody wishes to partipate here, add your comments to the *bottom* of this page, and sign your comments. Don't rant at the top, please. --Rob 07:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the news coverage ensured inclusion to Wikipedia. Arbustoo 08:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Please do no remove large portions of this article while the discussion takes place. It is not fair and makes no sense to ask people to decide for or against deletion when they cannot read the article. (posted by User:Williamo1)
  • All uncited defamatory claims and bias will be removed during and after the vote. Let's be clear: the version you originally made will not be allowed on Wikipedia *regardless* of this vote. This vote is deciding whether there will be a fair and balanced article on Lawrence, or no article whatsoever (nothing else). The version filled with unverified defamatory information is not under consideration, and will never return (for long) to Wikipedia. --Rob 20:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...non-notable person, POV attack page. KHM03 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would ask you, or anybody, who sees any POV attacks in the article to promptly remove it from the article. You're free to vote delete if you wish, but any attacks you see can be removed with or without deletion of the article as a whole. --Rob 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: as a person of interest he is one of Canada's more notable pedophiles - given he was a cop and then became a pastor (by covering his past) after his conviction, when all current pedophiles with more than one child victim are permanently under certain restrictions which wisely include not allowing them to ever serve in posiitons of authority - knowing his past - why would he train for and seek this carreer for himself? Pure motives? Then why start having children sleeping over in 2004 - and this is verified by numerous articles in the press - never challenged - and the press confirmed by quotes from Elders and Clerk of the new church where he teaches - that he did have kids sleeping over and these Elders told the reporter he was cured! KEEP and that he submitted to a court order and treatment in 2004-2005. Delete so he can get on with his life (doing just what) but what about the children getting on with theirs -and the court transctipts do indicate the judge UPPED his sentence (rare enough in Canada) from 5 to 8 years when it was revealed that he had admitted to molesting at least 15 more and refused to co-operate with the police in solving those cases - what about the children those - 15 (and God alone knows how many more) getting on with their lives...a wikipedia page is a small price to pay - AGAIN - almost all the deletes come from people currently listening to him teahc a three month series on "temptaiton". Go figure..? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Williamo1 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete, not notable, not distinct, not interesting, no redeeming value. Ineloquent 23:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, actually this kind of thing is highly notable, and highly distinct. There was substantial national coverage of this (at least for the original crime). You may have no interest in it, but obviously media across the country have, and the public did (as an issue of public trust). Let us not pretend a police officer, who's convicted of these extraordinary offenses, is typical. --Rob 23:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete: This entry strives to connect Lawrence's pedophile past of 15 years ago to the present. It is clearly a personal attack by one person and Wikipedia has a more noble calling than to allow itself to be used this way. February 19, 2006

• Keep there is interest on this list for the article. That bumps it from borderline to keep. FloNight 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longest streets in London

Proposed for deletion by 82.15.28.195 (talk · contribs) with the rationale "no sources, primary research must be repeated to verify, inherently and irretrievably WP:NOR, until such time as some reputable source publishes such a list, which we probably wouldn't be able to include anyway for legal reasons", also a case is made on the talk page. Kappa 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this article provides the best answer it can to an encyclopedic question, determining the length of a road from a map is no more original research than determining the length of a river in the same way. Kappa 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  Bzzzt, straw man, and misleading too. Measuring the river on the map is also OR. Of course, other people have already measured the lengths of rivers, and published the results, so we don't even have to do the measurement in te first place. Also, street names are entirely arbitrary, so being the longest in London isn't in any way notable, particularly as some continuous routes may have more than one street name. Sorry, but there's nothing anywhere which mandates that we need to be the repository of all information ever. This list so fails WP:NOR and WP:V, and therefore also WP:NOT. If this is the best we can do, it simply boils down to te fact that in this case (as in so many others) the best we have isn't good enough. This solution is no more acceptable than simply copying a chunk out of someone's research paper because we don't know anything about the subject. If nobody else has published the lengths of these streets, neither can we. I urge any closing admin to bear this in mind before considering if this is simply "interesting". 07:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the above. Royal Blue 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa . -- Mithent 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• No reason to delete (a.k.a. keep) There are many list articles on Wikipedia. In fact, there is a whole article devoted to listing lists. --Jay(Reply) 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  You're right. Besides, failing to meet no fewer than three of our most important content policies and blasting through the Five Pillars clearly isn't a reason to delete ...

  I am interested to see these examples of list article. Are they list of non-notable entries? If such lists are acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I will have to adjust one of my reasons for delete accordingly. -Lumière 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, per Kappa. These are facts that can be determined from information in the public domain, and independently verified (though WP is not for original research) by following a route with a sufficient measuring method. A simple sort by "longest" isn't original research, and provides information which some people clearly find interesting. On the other hand, WP:NOT an almanac or indiscriminate collection of facts and trivia. "Longest streets in London" is awfully weak in WP:Importance, and I really don't want to see hundreds of inconvenient-to-verify, easy-to-vandalize "Longest streets in Foo City" lists. Yes, London streets have more history and more references in literature than almost any other city's roads; but they're noted for other things than their length. Barno 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  I would urge a change of stance, as UK mapping data is in the main not in the public domain, and verification requires repeating the measurement process, therefore it cannot be independently verified.

  • Despite tone of anonymous editor in other comments, I'm changing to no vote (WP:V in question pending a more specific source). Also would like to hear more (specific, not generalizations with outs such as "in the main") about the legal status of mapping data in general (as compared to some company's proprietary database built from national surveys, published satellite photos, but also their own added-value information or organization). Barno 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite as Notable streets in London and remove long non-notable streets Ruby 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Longest notable streets in London? No, if this is kept at all, the redlinked streets should either be created (if there is some real notability for the street) or de-linked into plaintext. I can't imagine any neighborhood does tourism promotions "Sixteenth Longest Street in London!!" Is even the longest one widely noted for that fact? Barno 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to rename. Any entry in a list must be notable. We also don't say List of notable musicians/mathematicians/politicians. We only include the notable ones. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as is. Being among the 50 longest named streets in London is notable in itself. Not notable enough for separate articles in most cases, though, so remove the redlinks as per Barno. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  No it's not. Street names are arbitrary, and not an indication of status, thus a road cannot be notable for the length with which it runs with a given name.

• Keep per Kappa. This is borderline as to notability but, y'know, it's fun and sort of inherently English. Why not. --Lockley 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  Why not? WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and probably a few more too.

• Keep, this is a good list, interesting. --Terence Ong 05:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  "Interesting" is not a valid inclusion criterion. "Verifiable", however, is a valid inclusion criterion (required, in fact), but this list doesn't meet that. In essence, until someone publishes a list in a reputable source, it is merely speculating at what the longest streets in Londin might be.

• I think you're all missing the point here. Original research, people. Kappa's statement that this might belong here is provably false, since the list is indisputably original research (go on, just try finding some circumstance which makes this not OR). The one and only way of obtaining this data at the moment is to do the measurements yourself, and the one and only way of verifying this data is to repeat the same measurement process. Thus, the article is unavoidably OR, and cannot be verified independently of the original data.
• Keep. Notwithstanding the anon's argument above, I don't see any OR here. In fact, if there is one thing that should be fairly easy to list it's street length. Although instead of measuring it myself, as suggested above, I'd depend on an established reference such as [1]. Furthermore, if this anon wants to root out some more OR he might want to start tagging List of rivers by length, List of tallest buildings and structures by country, List of tallest churches, List of longest novels, List of lightest stars, List of highest mountains- to name a few. I mean who measured that stuff anyway?-- JJay 08:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  Your vote is evidently misinformed, because your reasoning is patently false (no offence). If you don't see any OR, it is either because you don't know what OR is, or it is because you're deliberately ignoring it. Your suggestion of using the A-Z is still OR. Wikipedia thrives on source-based research, but excludes original research. To summarise WP:NOR, OR is any research that introduces new information, SBR is any research that uses only existing information, though you are allowed to present this information in a different way - what's important is that nothing is done to the information. For the list of rivers, we are taking the already widely-published figures for various rivers, and arranging them by length. We're doing nothing new (Google for Nile km and you'll see what I mean). For the list of London streets, the data is generated by measuring using maps, or by physically measuring the route itself. In either case, we get raw data that we didn't know before - this is new information, therefore it is original research. Follow? What matters is not whether or not it has been measured, but who measured it and who published it. Since it appears that Wikipedia is the first to publish the fact that Western Avenue is 11.8 miles long to the M25, this is OR. The fact that this page is OR is not even up for debate, as it is indisputable fact. One deciding factor is its value to Wikipedia weighed against this fact. It is my opinion that, because nobody has WP:CITEd WP:RS (forgetting for a moment that this being WP:NOR means that no WP:RS exist), and that it can't be WP:V, the very little value this list provides is not worth setting the dangerous precedent of essentially allowing OR into Wikipedia.

• I am offended. Your continued badgering is becoming old information. Stop hiding behind your IP to make attacks, Change your tone and get a user page. Follow? -- JJay 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  Part of the whole process of discussion and argument (remember, AfD is a discussion, not a vote) is to examine and attack your opponent's position. I am not attacking your character, but your position that it's not OR when the fact is that it clearly is OR. Read the article, read the talk page, then re-read the arguments for deletion. Re-read WP:OR if necessary. The fact (for it is a fact) is that this list is OR, and anyone who cannot already see why is missing something big somewhere along the line, probably a misunderstanding of what OR actually is. Of course, you could just stop hiding behind your username to make attacks, and actually explain why you think this is not OR, so we can see at what point our opinions diverge (discussion, not vote, remember?). 02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the part above about old information, your tone and badgering. Then re-read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion particularly point V and VI under AfD etiquette. The fact (for it is a fact) that you have an opinion about this article was noted with your original statement at the top of the page. There is no reason to keep repeating your position. -- JJay 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and finally mocking the format of a previous comment is WP:POINT. Please retract. 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I cite one wikipedia page and that's how you react? You have called me "misinformed" with "patently false" reasoning and accused me of "deliberately ignoring" policy. You cite 10 wikipedia pages- itself a violation of NPA, AGF and CIV as far as I'm concerned- and claim I'm trying to make a point. The only point I'm trying to make is to get you to tone down your rhetoric. If this hasn't already been clear, I am not interested in being lectured by you or in debating you. Your opinion has been noted. -- JJay 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but find sources from which the evidence accrues. An excellent list but it needs to have sourcing. We can't require all other articles to have sources and not require this one. MLA 09:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  There are no sources. This data simply does not exist in the UK in any form that Wikipedia could use. That it might be a good list does not change the fact that it is pure OR.

  • The data could exist - where data is taken from maps then those maps exist and are sources - they should be quoted. MLA 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It could, but it doesn't. There is no map or document which shows the length of these streets. For what must be the third time already, no source exists to be cited. This has clearly involved using the maps to produce new primary data. Get it into your head that THERE ARE NO SOURCES FOR THIS DATA. Whatever maps were used did not contain this data, someone had to take measurements using the maps. Data exists such that these numbers could be calculated or measured, but it doesn't get you all the way to knowing Western Avenue is 11.3mi long to the Greater London border without doing things which brings you into WP:OR. Remember, Wikipedia is about producing a reliable secondary source, and this is primary data. How many times do I have to point out that this data is original, and therefore "keep" is not a valid option regardless of who suggests it?
• While we're at it, do some of those taking part in the discussion here not even realise that by even suggesting the possibility of keeping this article, you're smashing through no fewer than three of the Five Pillars?
• Keep per Kappa. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  Er, Kappa's statement is both flawed and factually inaccurate. That, and we can't keep OR. I am shocked and appalled that people are seriously suggesting we keep material which has been proved beyond dispute to violate three of our central content policies, and knock out three of the Five Pillars.

  Which three? It seemed to me that it is consistent with all of them. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this list is not encyclopedia material (particularly due to the OR). 2: Where are our sources? (clearly not the maps, since the numbers we're looking for aren't there). 3: Wikipedia is free content. OS licence terms may have been breached since the OS limits this data to personal use, and A-Z restricts commercial use. Until an English solicitor has reviewed all the facts carefully and given us the all-clear, we should not assume that this list is copyleft-safe. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

that all seems to be a question of interpretation, not smashing through any rules. This is pretty lighthearted information to cause such a serious debate, but no reason why an encyclopedia should not be amusing as well as informative. Absolutely no reason why this information should not be presented in a neutral way, but again I don't see anyone actually seriously challenging the accuracy of this information, so it becomes a bit absurd to demand sources. As to copyright, it is not clear that this is copyrighteable information, since the same information exists in many different works. Sandpiper 01:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until decent sources can be used for research, which would also remove the ridiculous self references currently on the page. JPD (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps the editor who feels strongly enough to backchat every vote on this page (presumably "82.15.28.195") should learn how to sign his/her comments? Looks dumb and harms the credibility of your keep campaign. Also, it would appear that the measly technicalities you're relying on to get this page deleted are pretty shaky. I personally think every redlink needs to be deleted immediately and the info is pretty useless but I'm not bothered about OR and to say that pillars are being smashed isn't accurate. If you look at the edit histories of some who have voted here you'll see plenty of editors who know what WP:NOR, WP:V etc. are all about and don't have a problem. My advice is to find a new pet peeve. ++Deiz 12:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In defense of 82.15.28.195 I think the OR concern is arguably a legitimate one, not a "measly technicality", but also not a clear-cut case. I believe it is possible for reasonable people to differ in this case, although not everyone seems to agree... Kappa 13:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well sure, people can have legitimate viewpoints on either side of a debate, that's why this page exists. That comment is a little out of step with your vote at the top of the page though, which seems like an assertion that there is no OR issue here. Of course, thats just my interpretation... ++Deiz 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's turn this discussion on its head. Assume for the moment that there is no OR issue here. If this were not OR, there would already be a list somewhere in a credible and reputable publication stating literally the lengths of the various streets in London. Reputable sources for this would include OSGB, various map publishers, and perhaps academic research. A trawl of OSGB turns up no such list. Google for the top five on the list as it stands produces only three pages of entries, including some lists of streets by name, none of which contain lengths. There are some documents related to TfL describing traffic schemes, but nothing giving the total lengths of all of these. Restricting the search to .ac.uk yields no results. Thus, there is no list, and as such the statement that the list is not OR cannot be true. Add in the fact that the talk page actually contains the methodology and confirms that Wikipedians have been applying it, which as stated is clearly aimed to produce new primary data; this reinforces the fact that it is undisputably OR. The clinching factor in deciding "Is this or is this not OR?" is this: according to the map sources, what are the N longest streets in London? If they can't tell you, then they're not the real source of this information. When you have taken the measurement from the map and recorded it somewhere, the map is not the source of that data, your records are. As for this: "Perhaps the editor who feels strongly enough to backchat every vote on this page ...", perhaps Deiz needs reminding that AfD is not a vote, but discussion. WP:AGF - what you might perceive as "back-chatting the votes" (TINAV), is actually engaging the "voters" (TINAV) in the discussion about their reasoning, particularly to establish what they think, beyond "per X", to see what we agree on, where we differ, and where our views diverge. 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment re: nominator: The user had only some 55 edits to Wikipedia at the time of his latest edit to this afd - of which nine edits were here and a handful of others were on other AFDs. Earliest edit was two days ago, yet we're having policy and the "five pillars" quoted at us. Sounds a little suss to me... Grutness...wha? 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If you check the talk page, it's someone who gave up their user page, rather than a new user. Kappa 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a book of records. Bobby1011 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  This is an interesting one, but it does not figure in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or did I miss something?

• Delete. Unless there is a reliable source for the data it is unacceptable to include the information. Under the verifiability policy I could legitimately remove all material from the article that doesn't have a valid source. I won't however advocate that just yet in order to avoid being disruptive. - Taxman ^Talk 16:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not Google™ --Avi 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteThis is one of the clearest violations of WP:NOR I can think of right now. If it could be sourced, then the idea itself is probably worthy of an article. However, right now, it's not worth keeping.
• Delete unless the article lists its source(s) (i.e. WP:RS and WP:V). There is also the problem as to what "London" means: the article states "London" extends out to the M25 motorway, which is not Greater London (the region governed by the Greater London Authority). Sliggy 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete list of arbitrary geographical features in arbitrary city meeting arbitrary criteria, without reliable sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this fails numerous Wikipedia policies especially verifiability. --Coolcaesar 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This would appear to be original research and therefore unverifiable. RicDod 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Crystal-clear violation of WP:NOR, which is firm policy. When someone else reputable publishes this list, it can come back with a citation to the source. To be clear; measuring off a map is original research; interpreting such a measurement as representing one of the 100th longest streets in London is original research. These actions fall outside the bounds of editorialization; they are original research. ikkyu2 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, although I agree with points of anonymous who has been bespattering this page, I would urge him not to be a dick. ikkyu2 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• KeepJcuk 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Point of interest about a far from "arbitary" choice of city. Why do you think this has been done for London, but not for Chichester? Merchbow 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  Because someone with too much time on their hands got bored? *shrug* 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per JzG. Stifle 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. This is an exceedingly esoteric topic, and could lead to a proliferation of similar topics for other cities, unless long roads in London have some other special interest such as being mentioned in literature or the news. Although it is clear original research, they're not putting any special interpretation or point of view on the data, so it's really more like data gathering. I'm sticking with delete only because, unlike a proof of a simple mathematical theorem, this is impossible to verify without access to the streets themselves. Deco 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am changing my vote to Weak keep on the basis that this information was derived from a map of London and could be easily verified by casual measuring of any other similar map of London, artifacts which are widely available even though the streets themselves are not. Deco 06:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not verification has to be independent of the original source material, or it's not verifying the facts stated. In any case, where on the A-Z of London does it say that Western Avenue is between 11-12mi long? 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• There are several elements of OR here. One is there had to be decisions made on starting points for the streets. How to handle curved streets. What was the algorithm used to verify the measurements on the map are correct? How were they measured at all. Having none of this available is exactly why we have a policy against original research. - Taxman ^Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, if it helps clear consciences slightly, the data on the page is entirely new and previously unpublished. Some may also want to be aware of a potential issue with copyright. The list itself may not be copyrightable, however, this does not mean that they can be freely generated from copyrighted sources against the licence conditions. I've made a longer note of this on the pump. Key point being that even if your results cannot be subject to copyright, you still need to make sure you're allowed to obtain your results in the first place. Unlike many other countries, the work of government agencies in the UK is not PD. With some further inspection, it seems that the restrictions on things such as [A-Z maps include "For private, non-commercial or educational use only" which I believe means we can't use them, or any original research work directly derived from them (since one of the principles of free-content is "commercial use allowed too") 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't personally believe it's reasonable to refer to a list of distances calculated from a map as a "derivative work" - there is no copyright issue here. Don't waste your time arguing this point, there's better deletion reasons to focus on. Deco 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you have two options. Either it's derived from the map, in which case OS copyright policy means we can't include it, or it's original, in which case it falls foul of WP:NOR. No third way here, I'm afraid. Either way, keeping this will be a somewhat dangerous, since it would involve blatantly disregarding the unchangeable and unignorable rules, namely that of copyleft-safety, and original research. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete clear-cut original research: there is no reasons to believe that the author's measurements are correct. mikka (t) 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Applying such a high standard of OR would invalidate many, many articles here on Wikpedia. It comes down to one pillar, verifiability. Can this information be verified? Yes. Would the person who feels so strongly about this they feel compelled to make repeated comments please consider signing using ~~~~? It's not one of the pillars, but it is a common courtesy. Turnstep 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually it's a bedrock and very important policy. All articles need to meet it. - Taxman ^Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, it is an aspiration. Most wiki articles are not verified and absolutely should not be deleted on that basis. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference is that without actual numerical data, independent verification of this list would be impossible. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Can this information be verified? Well, yes and no. If you take any item on the list, e.g. "10) 3.60 miles: Purley Way" This comprises of two pieces of information. One, Purley Way is 3.6 miles long, and Two) Purley Way is the tenth longest street in London. Item one can be checked from the map, although that has accuracy issues — if I reference the original source given and get a different answer to that published, can you truly say that it's a verifable fact? Item two is not verifable, to verify it was item 10, I would have to measure every street, and hope that I hadn't missed the same streets as the original author. That to me, is research, so the fact that the original editor is doing the same thing, looks clearly against WP:NOR to me. So, in summary, street lengths itself is iffy (I'd not remove that data is it was in an article about a street, for example), but ordering them is original research. Since this article is focused on the ordering, I'm afraid it really should go MartinRe 10:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article would be improved (and should be given the chance to improve) by excluding guesses and "measured by ... car" and referencing the maps used (either generally or individually by street. To me, measuring the length of a street on a map is no more OR than reading words in a book. Thincat 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm with Turnstep; the original research prohibition has its limits and needs to be flexible. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• No actually it's firm policy. You can't set it aside just because it's convenient. Please spend some time understanding the relevant policies before voting. - Taxman ^Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just because someone disagrees with your view doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the relevant policies. Reasonable people may interpret borderline cases differently. So get off your high horse and show some respect for differing viewpoints. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I replied to your message on my talk page, I'm sorry if I offended you. It's not because you don't agree with me that I said you don't understand the policy. It's because your statement is directly at odds with the policy. Turnstep's was even farther out, and you said you agreed with his statements. - Taxman ^Talk 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've responded on your talk page, so I'll stick to the subject at hand here. For example, what part of What is excluded? is violated here? I'm not proposing that we waive NOR willy-nilly, but that we recognize that some types of content lie on the border of NOR (for example, plot summaries for books or films). If the street lengths in this article come from measurements off a map (and if so, let's get the cite for that map), then is that original research, or just reproduction of published data, since the map is published and the street lengths are on the map in a non-numeric form? I can see both sides to that argument. I take the view that if the map is published, then the measurements are not original research, and they're verifiable. If the article contains measurements made by some guy with a tape measure or a really long piece of string, then the article still stays but needs a {{verify}} tag. Deletion isn't a good solution in either case. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is true that any policy requires interpretation, which is perhaps what some mean by "needs to be flexible", but we must do the necessary to correctly interpret it. -Lumière 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. See my comment below. I see no problem with OR because it is one of the objective of a map to allow users to find distances. Some maps have distances written on them. Of course a published map, ideally with written distances, should be provided as a reference. However, the most serious problem is notability. Just being "interesting" does not make it notable. Lumière 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the only way for a reader to check the veracity of the claims is to do the measurements himself, it's a violation of WP:NOR. If on the other hand there are maps that note the length of these streets, those should be cited as sources, and they haven't been, making the article a violation of WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm sorry, but to claim that a map of roads does not contain accurate information as to the exact length of each is ridiculous. Any map which does not contain that information is pretty worthless. This argument is entirely analogous to a table published in French, which someone translates into English and still cites as a source. Just because some people are unable to read distances off maps, just as some people are unable to read words out of a book, does not condemn us all to map dyslexia. Locating visual facts on a map sheet is no different to locating particular sentences in a book and including them in a history article. In fact, it might be rather easier to see which is the longest road than to find a particular mention of something. The only thing which writers of an encyclopedia do is collate information. This requires people to organise data and present it in a way which is useful to readers. If editors are not permitted to do that then someone might just as well pull the plug on all the wiki servers right now, and save the elctricity. Sandpiper 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a few components of original research in reading street lengths off of a map, and an additional one in trying to list the longest streets in a given area. There are a number of problems to contend with that make the issue much different from reading text. For one, what measurement tool is used? If a ruler by hand, then the scale of the map greatly influences the answer that will be had from the measurement, but so does the ruler used. Different measuring tools will come up with different answers for the length . How is that accounted for in the results reported? Some rulers have greater accuracy than others, even the thickness of the lines on the ruler will affect the result. How are curved streets handled? Are they considered at all? The choice of what to consider as one street is a problem. Where does the measurement stop if the street changes names? What precision is to be reported in the answers and how did one arrive at that confidence level? If the map is electronic, what tools are used to measure the lines, and how does the algorithm work? All of these items are judgement calls that are innapropriate original research. And no, ignore all rules cannot set aside any of the major content policies. You can't have a POV article just because you want to ignore the NPOV policy, and no "consensus" can do that. - Taxman ^Talk 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The difficulties you suggest in translating the data off the map are really not quantitatively different from the difficulties anyone faces when trying to prepare an article from different sources. It is my experience that different sources disagree with each other, and editorial judgement is needed to choose which versions to include in an article. I have also seen the result of someone who plainly does not understand a source then trying to write an article. Articles do not get scrapped because people make mistakes interpreting, they get corrected. Normally when editors have a difference of opinion over content, they fight it out and a consensus on the correct interpretation is reached. Just so here, though I have yet to see any real suggestion that people are arguing the factual content is incorrect. I am sure there are many wiki editors who have the source material on their own bookcase and the necessary ability to read a map to check for themselves that information here is correct. I regard the existence of such an accessible method of checking as making this article very much more readily verifiably than many others which might have a long bibliography which is however not immediately to hand. I remain of the view that a strict interpretation of NOR as suggested by some people would mean that this encyclopedia should totally be deleted. It is not possible to create a synthesis of data without doing original work. That is why such a synthesis is specifically permitted, indeed last time I read it, was mandatory.

As to major policies. A perceived violation of a policy is not grounds for deletion of an article. It is merely grounds for initiating a debate over whether such an article should be deleted. This is an important distinction. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for being a violation of WP:NOR. Tuf-Kat 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. MartinRe sums up the main problems nicely. Verifiability should be, at least, reasonable, and having to reproduce the original data from scratch in order to verify claims is most definitely NOT reasonable. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Calling the determination of the length of a street from a map for "origianal research" is stretching it a bit. I mean, if the map is available, the work can be checked, and hence such info can be made verifiable. London is a large city, and information on the longest roads is alright. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To check the length of any street, you can check the map for that street and measure it. That is bordering between OR and verifable due to accuracy in remeasuring, but could be seen both ways. However, to check that street is the 10th longest, you have to measure every street in London, hope you were accurate, and hope you didn't miss any. So, to verify fully any one item in that list, you have to do everything again. The latter problem, to me anyway, is what make this not count as verifiable. MartinRe 09:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not changing my vote (yet), but that's the best pro-Delete argument I've seen. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I found this one not so convincing because it relies on the amount of processing and expertise required. I think that we should expect that in some cases a lot of expertise and processing is needed to understand how the sourced information is supported by the source. I find the argument of Neigel von Teighen given below much more convincing and decisive, unless we cite a map that provides all required information. -Lumière 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not serous: it's a leave an open gate for POV (e.g. when a street changes its name in a certain point, it is the same street or a new begins? If a street begins a private property and then becomes a public way, where do you start measuring?) and for OR. --Neigel von Teighen 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, this is another important issue. Where are the beginning and the end of a street often cannot be determined from the map irrespectively of the amount of processing allowed. A formal criteria could be stated in the article, but the information required by the criteria (such as what is private or public) might not be available. This alone is a strong case for original research: the sourced information is not uniquely determined by the source. -Lumière 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Question. Do we actually know what the map in question is? Is it a single map? (I think it should be, or it has zero verifiability.) Is anyone sure that the data here comes from a specific map? I'm troubled by the lack of sourcing on the page, but that in and of itself isn't cause for a delete vote. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  That's somewhat beside the point. If you can't point at the source showing the information you need, it's not the source of the information. In this case, you can't point at a London A-Z or OS Landrangers of the area that states categorically the length of Oxford Street. We've heard plenty of reasons why this is OR, but what I (and others) would desperately like to hear before some admin mistakenly closes this as a "keep" (IIRC, they're supposed to weight the reasons, not the votes) is the reasons why people think it's not OR, in relation to the list itself (i.e. not excuses such as "if this is, then everything else is"). Particularly, why they believe that it's not the measurement that makes it OR. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. What a strange debate. It seems sooooooo obvious to me that a map is a published source capable of verifying the length of a feature marked on it, and that using that information is not original research. I'm astonished other users feel differently. AndyJones 11:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: My preferred reasons for delete delete are

1. The required information is not on any cited map: where a street begins and ends, for example when the street changes name, cannot be found on the map. Often one would need to physically go on the site or rely on local non-published knowledge.
2. It's either a list of non notable entries (and thus against What Wikipedia is Not and possibly against copyright policy) or, if you think it is more than that, it is against No original Research.

Reasons for delete that I don't like:

1. It's difficult to measure with good accuracy.
2. It's a complicated process to list all streets and order them.

I don't like these reasons because they assume that it must be simple for anyone to see that a sourced information is supported by the sources, which is not a policy requirement. For example, translation from German to English is not against NOR. Also, to see that a scientific statement is well supported by scientific sources might require a level of expertise that only a few expert-editors have. -Lumière 11:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please not bold your second delete here. Thanks. -- JJay 12:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:. While my vote is still at delete (not bolded, JJAy :) I want to mention that I don't think it is appropiate to remove the guts of an article — basically deleting it — while it is still under offical discussion for deletion. (I haven't reverted the removal, as if the result is keep, it will be done anyway, and if the result is delete, it would be pointless.) I don't see anything explicitly forbidding it in the Deletion policy, but the afd notice does ask people not to blank the article, and taking the majority of the text is going against the spirit, if not the letter of that policy. MartinRe 13:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, since its not really clear where I should put this point which has cropped up repeatedly above: no source of information is exact. Tables of scientific values all have limits to their accuracy. Arguing that a map is not a suitable source because of the inherent inaccuracy of obtaining data from it is not a helpful way to decide this point. All it means is that there is a limit on the accuracy of the data. Again, if all data subject to errors was deleted, there would be none left on wiki. A more interesting question is whether this use of the maps violates the copyright of the originators. I am sure that the aim of the map makers copyright conditions is to prevent other people making copies of their maps, which is certainly not what is happening here. Also, if I pick up a text book and use information tabulated in it, then I would not expect to be taken to task by the authors for using that information without permission. As I understand it, the information content is not copyright, only the actual presentation of it? What is presented here is only exerpts from the total of information, and is not unique information as many companies have independently gathered the same information.Sandpiper 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Question. Would an article that simply list all the streets in London with their length, assuming that everything is verifiable, be acceptable in Wikipedia? This question is not about the verifiability issue, but about What Wikipedpia is not (this section in particular). One of the comments above says that entries in a list must be notable. This kind of answers my question, but which part of WP policy says that? -Lumière 02:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, i don't think it helps this debate that you go through and change things which you have written and others have already responded to. It makes their responses nonsense, which is unfair, and retrospectively does not allow them to respond to your changed comments, which is also unfair. Please stop doing it. I can see that you have corrected your own arguments where you have found them to be mistaken, but instead of changing them, just continue by stating your changed position.

I would interpret noteablity as being a relative as well as absolute term. it means what is worth including, as well as what is widely accepted (as distinct from what is widely refuted) The wikipage you cite suggests that a sense of proportion is needed. So a complete list of all street lengths in London would be unacceptable, but a list of noteably long ones would be includeable. On the other hand, wiki is not paper, which is say it does not have the same space constraints as a conventional encyclopedia. In a paper volume there is a real sense that if one article goes in, another must come out. That does not apply here. So wiki can afford to include articles on relatively minor topics. Wiki resources are creaking at maintaining a free service, but I think the issue is numbers of people wanting to read it, not the still relatively small volume of information which makes up the encyclopedia. Sandpiper 10:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, with regard to your first paragraph, nobody as far as could see had made any reference to the comment that I deleted. Really, I felt that it was somehow totally ignored. I will check again, and if I see that some had made some reference to this comment I will be happy to put it back. I think I respected the spirit of the guideline which says that we should not modified our own text in a talk page if it was superceded. IMO, if nobody replies or makes reference to it, it is not superceded. -Lumière 13:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete clear violation of WP:OR. — ciphergoth 13:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless a source is cited with this information, it's original research. --W.marsh 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this could change and not be true. Who would know? FloNight 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• A suggestion. We could create a sub-page in which pro-delete and neutral editors would agree on the main reasons for delete, the best way to formulate them, etc. and a new section below in which these reasons will be copied and all editors could comment on them and try to obtain a consensus about whether or not these reasons are valid. If we succeed to have a consensus on only one reason for delete, then the article should be deleted. If, for every proposed reason for delete, we obtain a consensus that the reason is not valid, then we will keep the article. Otherwise, I guess that we will continue to seek a consensus until the decision will be taken by whoever is in charge. My feeling is that only a few main reasons for delete will be proposed, and this will focus the discussions around them instead on around individual votes or comments. I know that I am not very well known, and already I am attacked as a troll, spammer, disruptive, etc. by a few (and also for making many modifications to my own comments, but this one is well deserved), but I still propose this idea for what it's worth. -Lumière 16:18, 20 February 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 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Traitors

Non-notable (I believe) band. Article is... interesting. moink 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC and turn off the caps please. Royal Blue 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, does not pass WP:MUSIC. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Another one in the, as I like to call it, Wikipedia Test articles file. --Jay(Reply) 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Band resembles the probably notable group Benedict Arnold and the Traitors, but this isn't that. Grandmasterka 02:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. POV problems abound but keep as stub. (68.163.23.224 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC))
• Delete per nom. Ruby 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{db-band}} candidate. Article violates WP:Music - no albums, singles or notable members.  (aeropagitica)  07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 07:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Zwilson 08:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete poorly written article with a non-notable subject. Bobby1011 14:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete {{db-bio}} Avi 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rhyddfrydol 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete can start a new article if band is deemed notable. FloNight 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a hastening of the inevitable, and because this article is more pollution than information Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why al-Qaeda chose the date of September 11

Original research. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkg eu (talk • contribs) . Mkg eu (talk · contribs) is the article's author.
• Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and original research. Snurks ^{T C} 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, complete bollocks. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research. Makemi 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless author comes up with good sources for this (re: Talk page), which seems doubtful. -- Mithent 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV essay. Zarquon 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Where do I begin. (1) It begins with first person pronoun. (2)The definition of POV. (3) Is there any rule about facts on Wikipedia? Because if there is, the article is more of an argument, barely theory, than a factual account. --Jay(Reply) 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete O.R. unless the author is a high-ranking member of Al-Qaeda Ruby 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Jay --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Besides, I have a theory about this that's far better than this one. I'm sure a lot of people do. Grandmasterka 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 ^talk 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Jelligraze 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and send to BJAODN as "One of the worst articles EVER." Batman2005 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As the first words of the article say, "I am sorry"... but this is all the problems already mentioned above. --Kinu 03:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Many problems with this. --Lockley 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per original research. Basicially a very badly written editorial.-Jersey Devil 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Cnwb 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR.Blnguyen 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, Wikipedia is not a blog, original research etc. Capitalistroadster 05:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as orignial research. --Terence Ong 05:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Sbohra 06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research and atrociously-written research at that, too. Article also inherently POV, so WP:NPOV violation.  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research ComputerJoe 08:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 10:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR, personal theory. Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG SPEEDY DELETE Wikipedia is not a soap box. Neutral POV. No original research. Bobby1011 14:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. Avi 17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and maybe there should be a speed for 20+ deletes from existing editors vs no keeps (other than the author).--Isotope23 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as bollocks. You know, the Battle of Plattsburgh also took place on 11 September, why can't that be what was being referenced? Ergot 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Are you kidding me? Delete. This fails WP:NOR so clearly that it seems to actually want to. WP:NOT a soapbox. There are other wikis with more relaxed rules, but we are an encyclopedia, not a free weblog service. Or you could always spare some dosh and get a real, personal webpage. JIP | Talk 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete this one please we are really not a soapbox Yuckfoo 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Deleting it now since even Yuckfoo, who can find the nugget of gold in the cruddiest rock, can apparently find nothing to redeem it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:51, 15 February 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 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plexus Scientific

Advertisement. Zarquon 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability. You can't really speedy it, though. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable/advert. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notableTMac 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Jay(Reply) 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above. Cnwb 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn ad. Blnguyen 04:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable Elizabeth 05:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant advertising. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising, article is non-encyclopaedic in scope and content.  (aeropagitica)  07:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 14:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Classic clatant advertising, should fall under {{db-nocontext}} outside of trying to make money. As well as {{nn-bio}} of a company. Avi 17:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable advertisement stub. JIP | Talk 19:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FloNight 15:01, 20 February 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 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rail-rocking

Non-notable and non-verifiable TMac 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete TMac 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Nice try at an article; though it was interesting. BJAODN. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• From the article: "Although generally shunned and considered idiotic and dangerous, it has begun to accumulate" ... delete votes. Not much

for BJAODN. Barno 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another Test article. In fact, I think the term Test article should be acknowledged just the same as test edit. Its pretty much the same principle. --Jay(Reply) 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry, WP:NFT. Bad ideas 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jay Ruby 02:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, the Jay man. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NFT. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NFT. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't sound like a sport or a joke. Almost a troll, it seems.  (aeropagitica)  07:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like a troll. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not notable + unreferenced + poorly written + contradictary + original research + made up one day at school = Strong Delete Bobby1011 14:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete {{nonsense}}, dangerous, unencyclopædic, WP:NFT, vancarlimospacecraft, absolute idiocy, moronic, immature, infantile, and just plain stupid Avi 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 20:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not verifiable, likely test article FloNight 15:06, 20 February 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 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jascolio

Original research, author seems to be reinventing Esperanto OscarTheCat^talk 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NFT. Royal Blue ^T/_C 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Yet another Test article. --Jay(Reply) 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy, or as you say it in Jascolio, esto fututus. There are many sites that would welcome a project such as this. Smerdis of Tlön 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Classic WP:NFT --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NFT. Hey, WP:NFT rhymes.... ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research (userfication is fine too). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. This article isn't encyclopedic in scope or content.  (aeropagitica)  07:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NFT and WP:OR (assuming there was any serious research of linguistics put into this, of course). --Kinu 07:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And I doubt I'm the only one who thought the title referred to an unsanctioned knock-off of the Great Cornholio. --Kinu 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable or not (which I doubt), this page looks pretty much like a personal website to me. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 08:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Don't userfy! Allowing this to remain in the userspace would counter the idea that Wikipedia is not a free webhost. NFT and OR makes a big fat delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete is this a hoax? Bobby1011 14:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete "I am creating Jascolio..." Enough said. WP:NOR Avi 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a free webhost. DenisMoskowitz 19:27, 15 February 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 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of title tracks released as singles

Needed? Would surely be a huge list? OscarTheCat^talk 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Good idea, but wrong approach. Something like categorizing each song that one comes upon on Wikipedia as a title track released as a single, if it meets such criteria, would be much better. --Jay(Reply) 01:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a basically limitless article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Listcruft. Stifle 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unmanageable list. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above -- Astrokey44|talk 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless and potentially endless list. Cnwb 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I enjoy some lists, but this one is pretty pointless. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - completely pointless list. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft of the cruftiest variety. The author should have also created "List of title tracks not released as singles" for completeness. --Kinu 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless listcruft. How would the article be considered complete & authoritative?  (aeropagitica)  07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. --Terence Ong 08:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- listcruft. Why are these crufty lists always lists of songs? Reyk 10:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The creator already said it. "The list, by its very nature, will be incomplete." It would include pretty much every title track in existence as a LOT of them as released as singles. Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft. Bobby1011 14:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft, WP:NG Avi 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft, WP:NG. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C)
• Delete - I'm a big fan of lists, but this goes over even my line. Turnstep 05:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Apologies for voting twice and thanks to Turnstep for clearing the second vote. Stifle 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Listcruft DamianFinol 02:05, 20 February 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 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Fusion

Possibly not notable or even hoax (I haven't researched). Creator of the article participated in some later silly editing of it. -- Curps 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:VSCA. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A7. Fails to assert significance of subject. —Caesura^(t) 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VAIN and WP:NFT. Bad ideas 04:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• (Speedy) delete as nn vanity. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Vanity refers. The article contains no claims to notability for the group.  (aeropagitica)  07:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Asserts that they will be notable in the future. Yeah right. External Link is broken. Bobby1011 14:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Noy notable enough. Avi 17:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "Noy notable enough." Fix your spelling please.

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 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Badger Syndrome

Possible hoax. The description of this medical syndrome makes it appear as a possible play on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease). A Google search does not find anything that matches the description given in the article.[2] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 ^talk 01:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is possibly a hoax to promote http://madasbadgers.com/ Ruby 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax. NoIdeaNick 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as hoax unless author can provide citable sources to back up claim from Talk page. Jaxal1 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Blnguyen 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kind of funny in a weird sort of way... more so than some of the BJAODN candidates we've been getting lately... --Kinu 07:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if it existed it would've Googled. Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax Bobby1011 14:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax; why is it called Badger Syndrome if it's spread by squirrels anyway? -- Mithent 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{hoax}} and tagged as such Avi 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Rename mad squirrel disease. Peter Grey 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• 20:27, 16 February 2006 MONGO deleted "Travis, The White Horse" (article about a a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7))

[edit] Travis, The White Horse

Insufficiently notable horse

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Walker, Texas Ranger. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Royal Blue Ruby 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likezoinks (talk • contribs)
• Delete Note comment previous to mine was article author. Batman2005 02:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be a hoax. Crypticfirefly 05:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I am against redirect at this time since I can find no proof that a horse of this name appeared in this episode of the show. --Kinu 07:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Can proof be offered that this horse is the same equine that appeared in Walker, Texas Ranger? References should be provided for other claims such as the death of three cowboys. The article also needs to be cleaned up if it is to be kept.  (aeropagitica)  07:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like a hoax to me. --Terence Ong 08:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and somehow the phrase "insufficiently notable horse" struck me as quite funny ;x . Adrian Lamo ·· 10:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, have tried to work with the author get him to provide sources; but first he provided two dead links, then when I told him they were dead he gave two obviously completely different links, both apparently irrelevant (a site: Google search for "Travis" on the websites turned up nothing.) All of the references were straight links to the websites without any attempt to link to a specific article on the horse. Have to agree that this looks like a hoax. --Malthusian (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as is not notable or hoax. Bobby1011 14:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This is a {{db-bio}} candidate. If this horse were a person, would it be notable? Avi 17:29, 15 February 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 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2624

A year in a game - misleading and not worth keeping as a number.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... even though "2624 is the maximum number of pieces a torus can be cut into with 24 cuts" [3]. :P --Kinu 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, until about 2620 AD. Cnwb 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopaedic article. Can be mentioned in the game article, if required.  (aeropagitica)  07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FloNight 11:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "mechanical mechs to kill humans or something." not very encyclopaedic. Bobby1011 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and non-encyclopaedic. Retrieve information into the game's page ComputerJoe 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Unencyclopædic, WP:NG Avi 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A future year where no notable real world stuff is going to happen is non-notable. I don't care if the entirety of Civilization V takes place in 2624, if real events don't, then it should be deleted. JIP | Talk 19:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 2624 times over. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.. I merged the material into 27th century which has a list of such stuff. Herostratus 08:37, 19 February 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, defaults to keep. Ifnord 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Resource Management Application

Insufficiently notable website - 69 Ghits

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sub-page of Linspire.com with 15,053 rank on Alexa Ruby 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Endomion. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby. --Terence Ong 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Linspire; it's notable, but doesn't require its own article. --Zwilson 08:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Zwilson; Linspire isn't long enough to split out such a minor website. Melchoir 09:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per Zwilson Nick Catalano (Talk) 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the text was cut and pasted from the official page. Bobby1011 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh, and those images should probably be deleted too. Bobby1011 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Linspire after a healthy dose of non-copyvio-ing. Ziggurat 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:35, 18 February 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. – ABCD^e✉ 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irani slave trade

Possible attack page - homayon ghassemi is an athlete. Unsourced, unverifiable.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A1 and A6. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 04:37, 15 February 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 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superherohype!

Tagged for prod but the tag was removed. Nonnotable website, vanity, spam, and all that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete anivayamspayuftcrayisementyay. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VSCA. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:WEB. Bad ideas 04:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per that portmanteau. --Kinu 07:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable website, as per WP:WEB. Author also appears to have an axe to grind with another participant on the board & WP is not a place for the airing of grievances.  (aeropagitica)  07:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "They have also faced the small threat of potential spammers" Now that I can sympathize with. Bobby1011 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete WP:NG, Vancarlimospacecraft Avi 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB --Jay(Reply) 21:19, 16 February 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 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hind bint Awf

Being the father of someone (even if they are notable) is not inherently notable Ruby 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep ffs, i wrote i was working on it! can i please have more than 20 minutes to do reaserch? --Striver 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, take all the time that you need. And when you've finished, come back with an actual article. Until then, delete. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A1 and A7. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Guys, I see how you are arguing. Your view that this people can in no way be notable only being the relative of somebody. In most cases, that is true. But in some cases, it is not. This is one of those cases. First, Muslims places so much time and effort on the the genealogy of this people, that only being related makes them notable, in a Muslim POV. There are entire books that list this people and gives entries on what is known about each. Second, there is also the problem of research. Much of the information on this guys are in Arabic, meaning its hard to google them out, since they havent been translated. And when they are translated, they are transliterated in different way, making it harder to track them down. And some times, they are not even named, only refered to as " the mother of x did this and that". This results in taking a lot of time to create articles. And third, we have the problem of where to put information, if not on her own article. For example, Hind bint Awf is connected to 5 people. Am I supposed to repeat everything I find on here in each of those five articles? Every single bit of information on this people are of very high significance, where they live, who long, when they married and so forth...

I beg you to take a look at Sahaba's ancestors and Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era. Take a look at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html and try searching some hadith. Look at this list Shia view of the Sahaba. You see? Please don't decide that this person is not notable, unless you have a good understanding of this topic. Would I bother to write all of this if she was really of no intrest? Its not like vanity or commercial for anything, and its not like it makes Wikipedia look bad for having it. Give the articles time to grow.... --Striver 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If the daughters are notable, send us down an article about the daughters. We don't have articles about the parents of celebrities no matter how famous their children are. Ruby 03:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy? Just sayin' Crypticfirefly 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that we already have articles about his daughters. Kappa 03:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for removing the personal insult. We do if they are the mother of five celebrities , mother in law of a super celebritie and grandmother of yet another celebritie , dont we? --Striver 03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Kappa 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The notability claim here seems to be that one of this lady's daughters married Muhammad the Prophet, three two other daughters married early followers of Muhammad, and she is the grandmother of a major early Islamic theologian. The sheer number of people significant to Islam among her progeny makes her notable. Besides, if we can let Jeanne Marie Cossanges hang around for a year, we can give this article a few days to develop. Crypticfirefly 04:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep being one famous person's parent isn't notable; having so many of your children end up in such significant marriages is a different thing altogether. From what I've read so far, fascinating, but the article needs to be improved a lot. Georgewilliamherbert 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Georgewilliamherbert that improvement/expansion is needed. I'd like to see the dates when this lady lived (even if approximate), an explanation of what happened to husband #2, an indication of what religion she followed, and some discussion perhaps of what kind of work her various husbands did and what work she did. Also, did she have any other children? And if alternate spellings of her name is a problem, they should be listed. Crypticfirefly 06:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and expand I think this easily meets WP:Notability. Give Striver time to expand it -- Samir ∙ ^T _C 06:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So, i found some more. Is the article safe now, can i focus on other article now?--Striver 06:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can work on whatever you'd like, but why not do some more work on this one before going on to the next one? You could add references to whatever your source of information was, for example. Crypticfirefly 03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'd normally agree with Ruby on parentage but despite that and my own POV, this article does appear to be about a notable person as the lineage here is notable. MLA 09:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very notable. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 16:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs significant work, but the person described seems notable enough based on her daughters subsequent marriages Avi 17:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this article is an attack on the holy religious values of Islam and must be eradicated. No, I mean, keep, notable historical and religious figure. JIP | Talk 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep please agree with what Georgewilliamherbert Yuckfoo 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient notability of family. And Striver we do appreciate the articles you create - they help to counteract some of the inherent imbalances in wiki. Dlyons493 Talk 21:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Geneaology of the Hashemite dynasty, including the prophet Mohammed, is of great interest to students of Islam, a notable world religion. I agree that the current article falls somewhat short of WP:PERFECT. ikkyu2 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important early islamic figures. 129. 23:35, 18 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:34] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Lincoln Park Trixie Society

Delete not encyclopedic, and who knows what else. Aaronw 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, POV vanicruft. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royal Blue. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, joke page. Bad ideas 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn joke. Blnguyen 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This might be a joke, but it is a long-standing one (going back to at least 2000) and it gets semi-regular coverage in the Chicago papers. As a result members of a certain social type in Chicago are sometimes jokingly referred to as "Lincoln Park Trixies." I may put in some references later. Crypticfirefly 07:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete joke page. If Crypticfirefly can make clear the encylopaedic nature of the article as per the above comments then the article could stand.  (aeropagitica)  07:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not exactly a joke page. The "Society" is more like an online version of the Official Preppy Handbook, except its creators organized social events like pub crawls (and it is just a Chicago thing). Like "preppie" and "yuppie," "trixie" describes a particular type. Crypticfirefly 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I should add though that I don't have the time or interest to save this article, especially since Boinger, who created the page originally, is on hand. Crypticfirefly 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Crypticfirefly having added refs; the article itself is still a joke but presumably fixable. Melchoir 10:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 14:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While not a 'real' club, it is an oft-referenced 'pseudo-club' in both media and general culture. It is not a "joke", in the sense that the subject matter is false in and of itself -- that the 'club' aspect is noted as satirical is sufficient, I feel. Just search for 'Chicago trixie' on Google - 1.7Million results? Definite Keep. boinger 15:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. No place quotes around the two and see what you get 871 results of which most of those are not referring to the subject in question (notice the judicious use of commas in the search results). -- Avi 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But you do get 864 if you search for "Lincoln Park Trixie" and most if not all of those do refer to this subject. Crypticfirefly 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NG, Vancarlimospacecraft Avi 17:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gerard Foley 21:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As a resident of Chicago and author of Chicago Tribune article using the term, the LPTS is a valid sub-group within the social strata of Chicago. A LPTS woman is to Chicago what a "Valley Girl" is to Los Angeles, irrespective of being an actual society, club or organization.--anth 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(first of three edits by "anth" a.k.a. User:Gargiulo, disregarded, — <fon>)

Indeed, Valley Girl has a wiki page. boinger 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• KeepThe terminology is certainly a common part of the vernacular of 20-somethings in Chicagoland, and a real part of the culture. Just because this term is one of a satirical nature does NOT make the entry false or a "joke page". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.100.237.186 (talk • contribs) . (Third of three edits from this IP address, disregarded — <fon>)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of neologisms on The Simpsons. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homersexual

Complete nonsense of a page, edits by two new users, most likely the same person or two friends. Entry is completely unencyclopedic. I don't think it qualifies for a speedy, but certainly delete. lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - As nominator. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Canley --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism. Look, they signed the article. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense Ruby 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of neologisms on The Simpsons. --Canley 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vandalism.-Jersey Devil 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I maybe trouble you to elucidate that statement? :) Adrian Lamo ·· 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-encyclopedic. Probably not worth redirecting to list of neologisms on the simpsons. Bad ideas 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I might agree, but it already appeared there, so hey. Adrian Lamo ·· 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to List_of_neologisms_on_The_Simpsons as suggested by Canley, who beat me to it. *grumble* think they're so fast ... Adrian Lamo ·· 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn joke. Blnguyen 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Canley. -- Wikipedical 05:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Canley. It can't hurt. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Canley. No merge, though, as the text should be dumped: not only is it outdated (the gay marriage episode was what, two seasons ago?), but it's ripped off press copy (see [4]). --Kinu 07:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Canley. Chairman S. | Talk 07:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above and delete text + image.  (aeropagitica)  07:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Canley and delete that image too! Grandmasterka 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Canley. --Terence Ong 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Canley Nick Catalano (Talk) 10:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect makes perfect sense if already listed there. Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as misspelling of Homosexual? Bobby1011 14:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Redirect we're proposing is to List_of_neologisms_on_The_Simpsons, not Homosexual --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete We should allow {{nonsense}} for this stuff. Vancarlimospacecraft, WP:NFT, WP:NG Avi 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of neologisms from the Simpsons. JIP | Talk 19:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: A great piece of comedy, but not encyclopedic. Plus the article isn't even about the 'Homer-sexual' joke. Peter Grey 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've edited the article as a disambiguation page. Bobby1011 05:24, 19 February 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 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integrative Manual Therapy

Big glob of an infomercial Ruby 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete atblayantyay adyayervayisetayentmay. Need I say more? Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. I mean, at least attempt to veil thinly the advertisement as a legitimate article. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ... or for a fun time, redirect to masturbation. (I wasn't going to say it, but per AKMask's comment below, I decided why not, since I'm not the only one.) --Kinu ^t/_c 06:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an infomercial. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.Blnguyen 04:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising under the guise of an article. The huge blocks of text are also offputting to the reader, in addition to being non-encyclopaedic.  (aeropagitica)  07:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wiki is not free web space. Bobby1011 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Blatant Advertising, WP:NG Avi 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and add new entry to the 'Slang for Masturbation' article (At least that's what I thought when I saw the name... ;)) -AKMask 00:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomic Nervous System Templates for another article by same author. AED 06:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Marudubshinki. - Bobet 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vowel Productions

A "production company" operated by a group of high-school students. Currently no outside sources to demonstrate verifiability. CDC (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanispamcruftisement. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in blah blah blah you all know the policy :-) --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha. We should make that a redirect. :-) Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable Tawker 02:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VSCA and WP:NFT. Pretty much seals the deal on non-notability if your webspace is .cjb.net or on xanga. (Alternatively, redirect to Bowel Productions? Yeah, that was mean, I know... ah well.) --Kinu 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sample of the "corporate" "website" of Vowel "Productions" -- "This page will contain archives of old videos and old updates...once we get enough" Ruby 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanispamcruftisement. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Bad ideas 04:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 04:42, 15 February 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 Speedied. android79 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Side Down

Band does not assert notability. Article has been around a while so I brought it here. Results on google for "This Side Down" refer to a DIFFERENT band from newe orleans in 2002. No assertion of notability by means of any albums or performances. Non Notable. lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps Speedy A7. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Four Google hits in context. Fagstein 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete On their way to domination but didn't quite make it Ruby 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete delete per nom, got 4 Google hits. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: A7. Nothing on there to assert notability; they say they're a band, but don't have information to back it up, per darkness. --Kinu 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{db-band}} candidate, no albums, singles or notable members as per WP:BAND.  (aeropagitica)  07:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page. Not notable. Bobby1011 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Across the Road

Similar to Vowel Productions - a hobby video production group, unverifiable. CDC (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up in (do I really have to type this whole thing out again :-P) school --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu 07:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY violation. Non-notable, unencyclopaedic in tone and content.  (aeropagitica)  07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and rewrite notability verified by the fact that they make films that can be seen in the Internet. Bobby1011 14:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Why did the production company 'a'cross the road? Becuase it wanted to get stong deleted. Vancarlimospacecraft, WP:Notability, WP:NG Avi 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It falls under a similar category of The Loney Island and while may not be as popular is still in the same category. (66.170.194.88 00:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
• Strong Keep The new changes made to the site verify it's authenticity and make for a solid page. (66.170.194.88 00:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC))
• Keep If they actually make movies for free distribution, it should be kept up. And in reviewing their videos linked to their wikipedia site, it should remain.(66.170.194.88 00:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

Overwhelmingly mighty mondo-keep: Do you see that this is something being taken seriously? That this is an attempt at a career? Now I don't particularly like N*SYNC. I don't think those fellas are particularly talented and I'm far from interested in anything they do, but it's important to somebody. Dismissing this because you don't like it, don't understand it, or don't think it deserves popularity would be like opting for the deletion of N*SYNC's Wiki. The page seems dumb to me, but I know it's important to someone else, and it may help someone find the information they desire. If you oppose this page on the grounds that AtR is unpopular, keep in mind that creating a Wikipedia listing is a way of generating popularity and spreading knowledge of the existence of something. By the way, this is not, as banned by Wikipedia, a fad from a school or an inside joke. It is a film company, albeit a low-budget, unknown, modest one, that happened to be formed by school chums. If you are at all familiar with entertainment groups, you will know that many began as an idea begun between school friends that eventually took off. I'm not saying that Across the Road will ever be a well-known success, but humble beginnings, even without definite endings, are no reason for deletion. Is it really that big of a problem for you that someone wants a bit of recognition? I see no harm being caused, and vote overwhelmingly for a mondo-keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tougi (talk • contribs)

• Wikipedia articles are not vehicles for creating notability - we write about things that already are notable. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Sorry - please don't take this personally. CDC (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overwhelmingly mighty mondo-Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 20:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• 20:37, 16 February 2006 MONGO deleted "The Beards" (db-band)

[edit] The Beards

This is an article about an undistinguished band/sideproject but I think it would be kicked back from a speedy nomination Ruby 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Also delete Kim Shattuck. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Why would it be kicked back from a {{db-band}}? It sure looks like one? Avi 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep Kim Shattuck was a member of The Muffs a band notable enough for Wiki by virtue of multiple album releases. Ergo, The Beards are notable for her being a member according to WP/Music Jcuk 22:56, 15 February 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 history and redirect to Mafia Rd232 ^talk 09:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mob boss

• Delete. Seems to be a pretty clear hoax. Superm401 - Talk 02:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax; wholly unworthy of BJAODN. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. No BJAODN. (I would say to redirect to mafia, but the capitalization is all wrong anyway.) --Kinu 03:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Ruby 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a it is a hoax. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Blnguyen 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mafia. (Mafioso does; why not mob boss?) Defintely a hoax; Richard J. Hughes is a former governor and supreme court justice of New Jersey. "Hughes Crime Family" gets 0 google hits. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Poorly-written hoax article.  (aeropagitica)  07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mafia per Dbtfz after deleting the current content. No reason why a hoax should be retained in the history of a redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to organized crime or something similar. Bobby1011 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete {{db-attack}}, {{hoax}}. One of the two is correct. Avi 17:54, 15 February 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, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathleen Lake

• Delete: Appears to be a hoax. I know - it's a lake --- but it still appears to be a hoax. Google searches on the lake show nothing. Google searches on most or all of the towns mentioned show nothing. Google searches on the fish hatchery and the book mentioned in the talk page - all show nothing. Two anon's assert its existence though so I brought it here instead of prod. The article mentions a 3-mile long bridge on I-95 and the talk page mentions I-95 mile marker 105. But here and here show pictures of Exits 102 (bottom, far left) and 105 (right of center) in N.C. ---- I see no lake and I see no hint of a 3-mile long bridge or a need for one. This lake is supposed to be over 25 square miles which would take up the entire TerraServer page mentined above! I can't imagine the purpose of the hoax or what mix up there could be but I do not see a lake. To make matters more strange, the original anon's IP address is registered to the government of Frederick County, Maryland! Making a hoax about a fictional lake 300 or 400 miles away! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete this weird, entertaining hoax as non-verifiable. "McBratney", 0 Google hits for town name. Same with Briehl, Shawmut, Shawnville, and Kathleen Lake. Neither lake nor those towns show up on printed AAA road atlas. "North Carolina Experimental Fish Hatchery", 0 Google hits. "Kimberly Kathleen Foster", 0 Google hits. "Foster's baby boy lived to become lieutenant governor of North Carolina in 1891"..... as it happens, the lieutenant governorship of NC was occupied by Thomas M. Holt, then vacant, in 1891. --Lockley 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not even sure what the purpose would be. Is it funny somehow? Does a gov't computer's involvement mean it's somehow more sinister? Some crooked politician selling fake property on a fictional lake? I don't get it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Lockley. Pretty thorough research on both accounts! I find nothing myself either... it makes zero sense. --Kinu 04:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wknight94 and Lockley. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable. I don't quite see how this is supposed to be funny.  (aeropagitica)  07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Straaaaaaaange! I feel like saving it just so we can find out how this came to be. Could it be in a work of fiction, somewhere? Grandmasterka 08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Done and done. Another thing, the anon on the talk page mentioned his brother driving for "Libbey Washington Birthing Gowns". I can't find any sources for that either! I think we're either being laughed at or someone has some schizophrenia issues. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Next. Bobby1011 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Points of Issue:
  • 1. Where is *Brideham Lake* and *Brindle*? Apparently, Brideham Lake is next in line in size after Kathleen. I can't find Brideham Lake anywhere in my NC Atlas and Gazetteer.
  • 2. If Kathleen Lake is home to one of the biggest fishing derbies in the south, why does a Google search on "fishing derby" "Kathleen Lake" return bubkis?
  • 3. Call me crazy, but I don't think *Kimberly* was a fashionable name for a woman who was likely born in the 1830s or 1840s. Does anyone know of any references to Kimberlys from that time period? It seems to me that the name Kimberly is a child of the latter half of the twentieth century, rather than antebellum times!
  • 4. If the Union soldiers beat Kimberly to death as she gave birth, who delivered the baby? This article makes it sound like the baby just popped out on its own and ran off to Raleigh to run for office (which was apparently vacant in 1891!) You beat up a pregnant woman and there's a pretty decent chance you kill the baby along the way.
  • 5. What is a "mosquito density" test? Do they weigh mosquitoes or something? That line sounds Monty Python-esque.
  • 6. A 3-mile bridge span costs way more than $65 million.
  • 7. An artery as important as I-95 would never be allowed to be breached until 2010. If this bridge couldn't support truck traffic, NCDOT would be replacing it as we speak. What, do we flag down trucks in the middle of nowhere and have them exit before crossing the bridge? The Wilson Bridge in DC hasn't even taken that long!
  • 8. If I-95 was built in the 1960s, but the lake was extended in the 1970s, how did they extend the lake? Did they dig under I-95?!
  • 9. These people that are "fishing" in Kathleen Lake...hmm, I guess they live on oceanfront property in West Virginia.
  • 10. This whole thing reminds me of an episode of Family Guy when the other fisherman play a prank on Peter Griffin and tell him to go to some longitude and latitude supposedly in the Atlantic Ocean - but it turns out to be at the middle of a temple where a Jewish kid's having a bar mitzvah. "Yeah, there's some great fishing in the middle of I-95!"
    • It's a fascinating article, and an interesting scavenger hunt, but it doesn't seem to belong here. I'd love to know why the original writer created this article - it seems like it has some significance. Does Ricki Lake have a sister named Kathleen? ~~LynnW
• Strong delete hoax. By the way, the LG for NC in 1891 was not named Foster but Holt [5]. Sheesh. Avi 17:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I live near Bethany, North Carolina and have traveled the entire length (180 miles) of I-95 in North Carolina and as far as I can remember, there are no lake crossings of this size. This would be an even bigger crossing than I-85 over Falls Lake, NC, so it would be noticeable to say the least. Now I do believe there is a Kathleen (or Katherine, or something similar) Lake in the neighborhood of I-95, but it is far smaller than 26 square miles, and I believe it's close to Lumberton, North Carolina, which would be about 90 miles south of the purported Kathleen Lake in this article. 67.35.30.80 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yassmin Alers

• Delete: Non-notable stage actress. Has a few credits at ibdb.com but lots of others I've found with similar credentials don't have articles either. WP:BIO doesn't mention anything about stage-only actors and they don't register as notable in my mind anyway. The one list there is:
  • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • An independent biography
  • Name recognition
  • Commercial endorsements

I don't see where any of these apply for this actress. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite the internet culture, theatre and Broadway still count for something. Furthermore, I'm offended by a blanket statement dismissing stage actors as non-notable. Ms. Alers has been in a number of major Broadway shows. This article needs some expansion and clean up- not removal and condescension. -- JJay 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To me, actors who never get into imdb.com are like baseball players that never make the Major Leagues. WP:BIO seems to support that as well. Doesn't make them bad people - just unencyclopedic. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I understood what you meant when you wrote "stage-only actors...don't register as notable in my mind". Let me be clear, in my opinion if the Bio page does not address the stage then it should be revised if not completely trashed. I would certainly not use it as any kind of yardstick for judging the achievements of Ms. Alers. That is my opinion. I would ask that you do not use the word unencyclopedic as an assertion of fact when you are really just stating your opinion. -- JJay 04:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Commment: It's a given that everything here is opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
        • It's also a given that we treat the subjects of these articles and their chosen profession with a certain amount of respect. -- JJay 04:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Saying someone is unencyclopedic is a show of disrespect? I don't remember reading that in the Afd guidelines. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Your nom dismissed an entire profession as "non notable". You then compounded it in your second comment. That is your opinion, but it would seem to make you poorly placed to judge a theatre person's accomplishments. -- JJay 04:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
            • So if there was an article here for a janitor and I brought it here for that reason, that means I have no respect for janitors?! Come on... If WP:BIO said "all stage-only actors are in", I wouldn't be typing this now. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Wp:Bio is a set of extremely inadequate guidelines. It does not address the stage and it does not address janitors. Based on your own statements, you have very little regard for stage actors. Your nom has neither examined Ms. Alers' standing within the theatrical profession, nor explained why an actress who has appeared in a number of Broadway shows- the major leagues of her profession- should not have an article here. -- JJay 05:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Again, you're equating my saying something is non-notable to me having little regard for that thing. My mother isn't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia - that doesn't mean I have little regard for her. You seem to have little regard for the WP:BIO guidelines which I think is more germaine to this argument. Here's a reason she shouldn't have an article. All these people have as many or more credits listed at IBDB.com and are red links: Stephen Lee Anderson, René Ceballos, Gilles Chiasson, Aiko Nakasone, Jarrod Emick. Every similar person I found who did have an article also had numerous television and/or movie credits. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All that shows is that very few people write articles on stage actors. We have a similar lack of articles on child actors for which very few would argue their notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • I'm going further and saying no one writes articles on stage-only actors. I didn't find a single counterexample except this one. I stopped after five examples out of boredom. With Wikipedia now having been around this long with this many contributors and this many articles, I think that shows a clear pattern. Even if someone starts writing articles about stage-only actors, it doesn't sound like they should start here. All but one of my examples above have IMDB credits so they're more deserving of articles first. There's more chance that the billions of people outside of New York City may have seen or heard of them - that's just a fact, not disrespect. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I've been very clear about my opinion of the guidelines. The use of the qualifier seem is not required. In the same way you have been very clear in stating that you do not believe that stage actors deserve inclusion here. I have disagreed. Ms. Alers has been in the casts of a number of Broadway shows. I have confirmed Rent and Capeman. That is good enough for me. There is no point in debating this further. -- JJay 05:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Being an understudy is good enough? --Calton | Talk 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
        • In some ways I would argue it is better. She was an understudy with the original cast of Rent, which means she played almost all the female roles at one time or another in front of a live audience. She then had a marquee role with the first touring company. She was also in the original cast of the Paul Simon show Capeman. Those are the only two I tried to confirm but there may be more based on the list on her website. -- JJay 08:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Of course stage-only actors can be suitible Wikipedia topics! But I'm not sure that this lady is well-known enough because I don't have enough of an interest in the genre to really judge. If she had a major part in the original production of Rent rather than being an understudy, perhaps-- but then she did have what I assume was a major part ("Mimi") in the touring production. And she is verifiable. Crypticfirefly 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Of course stage actors, lack of film/TV credits notwithstanding, are well-suited to have articles. Being an UNDERSTUDY on a Broadway show: not so much. --Calton | Talk 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton. Of course stage actors don't appear in the IMDB, they don't have tv and movie credits. That doesn't mean they are inherently non-notable, though. On the other hand, being an understudy/ensemble member without any major roles is a good reason to delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Crypticfirefly Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete She has Stage, TV, and Band credits. Yassmin Alers Not famous in any area, though. FloNight 12:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep somewhat notable. There is an under-representation of theater on Wikipedia. I wouldn't want to compound the problem. Bobby1011 15:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just having a job (actress) does not make one encyclopedic. If she starts getting major roles and attracting lots of attention as an actress, that's another story, but I don't see that this happened yet. Friday (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This AfD is just a display of aggressive ignorance; asserting that stage performances alone cannot provide notability is astonishingly foolish. Alers' Broadway credits are certainly substantive, if not stellar, as shown in the IBDB; a comparable entry in the IMDB would with next to no dispute satisfy the Wikipedia notability requirement. (A "swing" performer is not an understudy, as several of the comments here dismissively suggest, but one who is prepared for most if not all of the relevant non-lead roles in the program, and appears fairly regularly as a substitute performer.) Wikipedia has scores of entries for women who perform on stages with poles [6], particularly women who have had attention-grabbing (if not outright deforming) cosmetic surgery and perform on stages with poles [7]. There is something creepy about the way so many editors believe that being an open participant in the commercial sex trade is inherently notable, while being an above-average working artist is not. (The average New York City actor never appears in original cast of a major Broadway production in any capacity, as Alers did in The Capeman.) Monicasdude 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude, while I agree with you that many of the women notorious for their plastic surgery and complete disregard for the use of various undergarments should not have articles either, that is no excuse for having this one. Why don't you nominate those other "dancers" for deletion as well? -- Avi 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Because that's an exercise in futility; the community seems to have a settled position on this point. [8], [9], [10], and, on the male side, [11]. With the notability bar set that low, there shouldn't be any question here. Monicasdude 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: "Astonishingly foolish". Let's try to be civil please. Wikipedia has a million articles or so and almost none of them are stage-only actors so I guess that's a lot of astonishingly foolish people. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wknight94's peculiar standards notwithstanding, the answer to the lack representation of notable stage-only or mainly theater actors (not an oxymoron -- the TV/film industry isn't the end-all and be-all of acting notability) is NOT to lower the bar to pad out Wikipedia's coverage, but find and include the headliners who aren't represented, the likes of, off the top of my head, Kristin Chenoweth, Cherry Jones, Sara Ramirez, and Sarah Jones (who all, checking the "Show preview" button, have articles). Lots of red links, though, on the various Tony Awards pages -- actors and actresses whose names actually appear on the marquee and not in the back of the Playbill. Wikipedia's coverage of porn "stars" is ridiculous, but two wrongs don't make a right. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good points, but can we please lose the "stage-only" bit from the discussion? The proper term is stage actor, theatre actor, or thespian. "Stage-only" is a further slur against an art that not too long ago was the only game in town.-- JJay 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I don't see how we can. It's 2006 and whether a person has television/movie experience is a totally relevant criteria. Calton seems to have found in Sarah Jones the only other person with IBDB credits and no IMDB credits that has an article on Wikipedia. If that standard is so peculiar, then why isn't anyone here adding similar articles? If I can somehow drag this discussion back to the original article here, there appears to be dozens or hundreds of actors that are in IBDB and not in IMDB that would be more notable than Yassmin Alers but don't have articles here. How can that not be relevant? It's like making a list of all notable American cities and starting with Palisade, Nebraska --- and then giving up after that one. If I saw that, I'd guess the list wasn't too impressive to begin with. (Okay, now many people from Palisade have I offended?) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't give up, do you? I said above there was no point in debating this anymore. I merely mentioned a point of semantics. "Stage-only" does not exist. It is a term that you have invented. -- JJay 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Call the phenomenon whatever you want. Until I see all the thespian fans here adding dozens of articles that fit the same criteria, I'll call it "un-notable". —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm dubious about the accuracy of this article. It says that she has "appeared in many commercials nationwide, and can be found in many movies and television shows." I only see one TV credit and she has no IMDB entry. But she did do a national tour and does get a lot of google hits. However she doesn't appear to have the bona fides of a notable broadway actress just yet. So I'm stuck in neutral on this one. :) — RJH 16:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable Broadway actress and roles make her notable enough for me. It seems we have work to do on our coverage of theatre as opposed to other forms of entertainment. Capitalistroadster 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While stage actors are no less notable than film actors, a perusal of her resume on her own site demonstrates that she has always been an understudy, in the ensemble, or had some other unnamed part. She may be a wonderful actress in that role, but that is not inherently notable. Avi 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep' please a notable and verified broadway actress Yuckfoo 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've never so many people complain about the coverage of an entire subject - but do nothing to actually increase the coverage of that subject! If there were a hundred other similar articles, I'd think it was a standard and leave it alone - but no. Instead, we just leave this one article drifting out on its own and then call me "astonishingly foolish" when I start playing "one of these things is not like the others..." No one knows how to create new articles on this vaunted genre? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So let's make this the first of the hundred. A single article is how all genres start. Turnstep 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep HasNoClue 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• keepJcuk 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, has had important roles. Also, recommend that JJay bring the discussion of criteria for inclusion of stage actors to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Very good suggestion. Then we can avoid the serious wounding that has apparently occurred here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a strong public notability, but certainly notable in her field, which is as always the important criteria. Turnstep 14:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Others here seem to disagree even with her notability within the field... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: subject is weakly notable but is minimally notable. Mangojuice 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I absolutely agree that a stage career can make you notable. "Swing/Understudy" in "Rent" though? Check her out here and you find a professional jobbing actress, no doubt talented and hardworking, but not yet doing anything that justifies an entry in an encyclopedia. While I'm here, though, I endorse AdelaMae and Wkinght94's suggetion, above, to bring this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). AndyJones 11:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Stage actors: I'm going to start the discussion there with a proposal: I don't think we need "votes" to start a discussion. Mangojuice 13:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, though barely. The arguement we should exclude stage-only actors is utterly absurd. The nominator has confused bias with policy. We don't have articles on many communities in certain parts of the world, that doesn't mean its policy to exclude them. It means we lack Wikipedians with an interest to do so. Wikipedia should strive to cover more then just pop culture. One should never confuse "notable" with "stuff I care about" or "stuff everybody already knows". --Rob 14:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Utterly absurd" is awfully strong considering this many die-hard stage fans have been around Wikipedia for this long and almost zero such articles have been added. That sounds a lot more like "stuff no one cares about". We have teenage college debate competition runner-up's covered like a thick blanket but these "thespians" have been ignored here for years. For about the fourth time, I'll say put your money where your mouth is - spend less time attacking me and more time pumping out some articles on people whose notability is apparently obvious to everyone but me. And BTW, don't say "stage-only" for Godsake or someone here will blow a gasket! They choose to never get widespread media coverage or fame. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Why should I spend "...more time pumping out some articles on people whose notability is apparently obvious to everyone...", when you wish to delete those very articles. The fact we've undercovered stage-only actors is all the more reason to have more articles on stage-only actors. Also, I'm going to call your bluff here. Please cite some examples of people who's sole claim to fame is being a "college debate competition runner-up", that have articles. I suspect every such article has been speedy deleted a long time ago. --Rob 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't delete those articles if there were more of them. I'm going by precedent here - and by the fact that WP:BIO's guidelines seem to come nowhere near including this person - so I don't understand why everyone else is saying it's so obvious that this career choice is notable. The college debating comment was in reference to Erik Eastaugh whose Afd also has a lot of people saying he should obviously be kept. (I voted delete there on a different precedent that more notable competitions - like Speeling Bees that I've even seen on TV - get nowhere near as much coverage here). He's linked from at least one article that seems to link to a bunch of other college-level debaters. Regardless, my point is when you start adding a new category of info, you start at the top ---- otherwise it looks like cheesy vanity to the outside world. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. per Crypticfirefly. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:14, 20 February 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, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personality of Superman

Listed at copyright problems, not a copyvio (the other site copied from Wikipedia). However, it's clear original research; see WP:NOR. Delete. Chick Bowen 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NOR ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless heavily sourced from reputable sources. (NOR) Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Way too much effort for something that must simply be deleted. Bobby1011 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 18:27, 15 February 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. – ABCD^e✉ 05:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)tally on talk page

[edit] Kitchen distribution

Poorly written and un-wikified, one of three edits by IP address 24.51.38.241. Google search for ""kitchen distribution" buffalo" produces 120 results. Delete. Joel7687 08:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like it is an ad or similar. Bjelleklang - talk 08:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert or review of nn local business. MCB 18:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad complete with directions. Devotchka 00:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

• Recreated 8 Feb 2006 - Delete again Still (again?) poorly written and pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.145.168 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy G4. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per prior AfD Ruby 03:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above Fan 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:SNOW and because we really do not need political diatribes from problem users in the main space Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean safe nuclear energy

Delete. Four words in an SOTU is not something to title an article on. Will duplicate material covered elsewhere. Article created by User:Benjamin Gatti to "Document Bush's propaganda", so little chance of NPOV treatment. --Robert Merkel 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• These specific four words can be traced to the NEI - a Lobbying organization, and have been previously ruled to be false and misleading advertising. The President choose these four words to sell the public on an adjudicated lie. Deserves to be documented individually. Benjamin Gatti 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, NPOV issues, WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article would fit right in on Err America Radio Ruby 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The claims made above are misleading. The use of the phrase dates back at least as far as 1988, when it was used by George H. W. Bush during the Presidental debates, according to this PBS transcript. No evidence has been adduced, thus far, for the NEI's coinage of the phrase at so early a date. The decision made by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in 1998 (the "adjuticating" body referred to above) speaks generally to the juxtaposition of "clean" and "nuclear power"; this specific phrase does not appear in any of the coverage of the decision (I cannot find a copy of the decision itself). Having researched all this since the article (which I originally proposed for deletion with Template:Prod) was moved to AfD, I stand by my original assesment: the article is NPOV and of little value, and none of its contents merit an article separate from nuclear power. Choess 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume you meant "POV", above. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as inherent POV. Blnguyen 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see any potential for an NPOV article out of this. pstudier 05:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV article. --Terence Ong 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hopelessly POV. Georgewilliamherbert 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Of course. —wwoods 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An obvious propaganda vehicle by User:Benjamin Gatti, and arguably a violation of his week-old Arbcom case. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NPOV violation. Political comment rather than encyclopaedic.  (aeropagitica)  07:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV propaganda with no redeeming content --DV8 2XL 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete , User:Benjamin Gatti still thinks Wikipedia is the place where yelling his own POV. --Cyclopia 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton, and see this also. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and maybe inform some sysops about Gatti's breaking of his ArbCom case terms. Batmanand 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as both POV and redundant (nuclear power covers health risks and politics already).
• Delete concur with hopelessly POV. Inaccuracy doesn't help. Simesa 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with something like Bushism or whatever. Failing that, Delete. Bobby1011 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV by nature with no hope of a NPOV version... I did learn something though: Carter was a Nuclear Engineer; and here I thought he just grew peanuts.--Isotope23 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The page has to go ! It is a dire assault upon my senses with its POV (I think that the text is so bad that the only way to deal with such a page is to get rid of it and start again, much of it is either POV which has no place here or is already present somewhere else.). The idea of how clean nuclear power is (or is not) should be subject to a rational and sensible debate not this soapbox treatment.Cadmium 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G5, A6 (article serves to attack its subject, which is "clean, safe nuclear energy". Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic, WP:NPOV, Avi 18:28, 15 February 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 00:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malakora

Seems like a hoax article to me. -Mikereichold 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This article was improperly listed for AFD, listing now, no vote. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Reliable sources list Vatican City as the smallest country in the world. —ERcheck @ 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ERcheck Ruby 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, per ERcheck. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Blnguyen 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. -- Wikipedical 05:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Terence Ong 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. -- Mithent 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable, possibly fictional micronation. Bobby1011 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete We should have a speedy category for this too. {{nonsense}} sounds good Avi 18:30, 15 February 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, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamyar Cyrus Habib

• Delete: Non-notable bio. Only possible notability is being a Rhodes Scholar and apparently being blind. Few hits on Google. Seems like he's just the most popular kid on campus. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencylopedic. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom... vanity? -- Wikipedical 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Mr. Vernon 07:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Bobby1011 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Being a Rhodes Scholar is in and of itself notable. Being a blind Rhodes Scholar from Iran, written up in the New York Times as an example of the sort of recipient who contradicts Rhodes' goal of recognizing a new white/Anglo aristocracy, and whose work as a disability rights activist has been recognized, is certainly notable. [12] It's worth noting that Playboy Playmates are generally regarded as notable, even though their principal social role is to serve as masturbatory objects for adolescents and sexually frustrated males, and their career paths typically involve, at peak, promotional appearances at auto and boat shows, as well as appearances in exploitation films and softcore and occasionally hardcore pornographic projects, as well as work for more expensive "escort services" and "gentleman's clubs." While this almost unblemished record of achievements apparently towers over the records of achievements by Rhodes Scholars, as shown here, [13] , the notability of Rhodes scholars should not be so casually dismissed as the editors here do. Monicasdude 16:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a notability discussion, not a morality discussion. And, for the record, your "...written up in the New York Times..." is actually the following sentence fragment in a 2002 article about a different handicapped Rhodes Scholar: Among the other winners announced today are Kamyar Cyrus Habib, a Columbia University student from Kirkland, Wash., who is a black belt in karate, a downhill skier and a published photographer — as well as blind;... [14]. The other things you mentioned were not in the NY Times. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Userfy. Not notable yet. Avi 18:32, 15 February 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 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sayeeda Warsi

A failed election candidate (lost easily 41% to 29%), who also has had a few public servant jobs, none of them as notable bureaucrat leaders. Blnguyen 04:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Notable enough, "first Muslim woman to be selected..." This page of course needs added material, but otherwise she seems notable enough as a valid entry. -- Wikipedical 05:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedical. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedical Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedical. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's not often that the conservatives in Britain elect a muslim person. Bobby1011 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per wikipedical Yuckfoo 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, some of the public service jobs sound pretty significant.Bjones 19:30, 15 February 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/merge. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stay Close

Does not really assert notability. Delete. (I would have speedy deleted it if I were completely sure that it's not notable.) --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Just because a page has little content does not mean it should be deleted. After assessing its website, I find StayClose to be a relevant organization. Its Wikipedia page needs added content, not to be deleted. -- Wikipedical 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, the notable organization that is behind the campaign. I don't see any reason for the campaign to have its own article, esp. when the PFLAG article is little more than a stub. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm amazed the PFLAG article is so brief. Hrm. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Bobby1011 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to PFLAG. Seems more of a campaign than a separate organization. Turnstep 14:36, 16 February 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 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karmøy Unge høyre

Untranslated at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Swedish? No idea what it's about! Tonywalton  | Talk 13:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Swedish - it's Norwegian. It's about the Karmøy branch of a political group (party?) called Rogaland Unge Høyres, which I think means 'Rogaland Young Rights' (Right vs Left, not rights vs duties). I may have Unge wrong though - I wonder if it might not be 'New Rights' (like German 'Jungendstil' for 'Art Nouveau'.

It says KUH is the third largest branch of RUH, and lists its officers. Probably not notable on its own, but should maybe form part of a RUH article, ColinFine 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's in Norwegian, and about the local chapter of Unge Høyre ("Young right", not 'new'), the youth organization of Høyre. It's basically a short blurb on how they're the largest political youth organization in north Rogeland (see? you can always be the best with enough qualifiers!) who are fighting for diversity and equality, and then a list of the board members. Given that the Unge Høyre doesn't have an article (just a single paragraph in the one for Høyre), I don't think this warrants its own page. It's vanity. --BluePlatypus 02:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Untranslated after the required period. eople with a better knowledge have told us above that if it was in English, it wouldn't meet our notability standards. Capitalistroadster 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. I can read it and verify that it's not noteable at all. Amphis 07:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all these people who speak Norwegian (OK, so it's not Swedish!) Tonywalton  | Talk 11:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable whatsoever. Norwegian language riddled with spelling errors. Punkmorten 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 18:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if it was worthwhile someone would have translated it by now. Stifle 23:57, 15 February 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 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cercanías Madrid lines

Delete un-needed sub-article of Cercanías Madrid, content is already in main article Aaronw 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't even work out what they're talking about. City lines? Bobby1011 15:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless anyone has anything to actually write about the lines. -- Mithent 23:28, 15 February 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, cc to BJAODN. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sitting U.S. Vice Presidents who have shot people

This was originally speedy deleted by Bbatsell, but several editors asked for it to be undeleted so they could see it and BJAODN it. Also, there can be a bit of encylopedic merit on the article, if it is cleaned up. By the way, I don't mind if it is speedy deleted again. No vote. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• BJAODN the fake bits, not sure how much value there would be in the rest of the list. --AySz88^-^ 05:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Whichever idiot came up with that page should be beaten with a bunch of bannanas. And then forced to listen to Glen Stephani spelling "bannana". A.J.A. 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Lol. BJAODN the whole thing and award Tito a pat on the back for a worthwhile rescue. ENCEPHALON 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are only two VPs to have shot someone and it would be nice to have a page to discuss the events. Especially considering the Hamilton duel is an often cited American example of courage and honor. Remove the false stuff. Arbustoo 07:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

They may cite it that way now that Cheney shot someone, to make him look bad in comparison, but I always remember the story of the duel being viewed negatively. The pride of two men leading to the death of a Cabinet member. It was romanticized to the extent that duelling is often romanticized, but mostly I think it was seen as tragic or discgraceful.--T. Anthony 10:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• BJAODN --Terence Ong 08:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ha ha haaaa!!! BJAODN this, it might be another 200 years before a third person qualifies for the list. Grandmasterka 08:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJADON MLA 09:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJADON; Arbustoo, Hamilton-Burr duel already has more than enough on this. Melchoir 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN- buahahaha! Reyk 10:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN Anyway, there is nothing in the article to indicate that either of the two men were sitting down at the time of the shooting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as encyclopedic, notable, expandable in the event of further gun-related unpleasantness, verifiable, and ... other stuff. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless there are other less known examples that can be added. (I could believe Calhoun shot someone, but I don't know he ever did so)--T. Anthony 11:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite Notable events, but 2 entries don't make a good list. Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And rename: Shooting incidents involving United States vice presidents? = Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rewrite Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't believe there are any keep votes, let alone rewrite. There is no material that could belong here instead of Hamilton-Burr duel or Dick Cheney hunting incident. The only reason I haven't edited the article to mention Hamilton-Burr duel and Dick Cheney hunting incident is that it's a joke being preserved for BJAODN, where it should already be. Melchoir 12:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, isnt worth having a list with only two examples. already mentioned at Vice President of the United States -- Astrokey44|talk 14:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • BJOADN Comment I think that the size of the list is a strong contributor to the joke's value. MLA 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, although the J and D are all that really apply, as it was funny, clever (althought entirely unencyclopedic), and not nonsense. youngamerican (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Entertaining, but not really the sort of thing most people would need a reference for.--Elkman 17:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN until a 3rd VP shoots someone. Then you'd have a list! It made me laugh though.--Isotope23 17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• bjaodn this for now please unless there is third one Yuckfoo 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Two categories for this "information" are already listed on CfD. This "list" isn't any better. Pavel Vozenilek 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep HasNoClue 19:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete of course; the similar categories (now up to 3 of them) are up for deletion as well. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• That's a BJAODN, obviously. Stifle 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: The tragedy is this article is a sympton of how Americans care more about what their political leaders do as private citizens/celebrities than they do about how they do their jobs. If not delete, the sensible thing would be merge with a trivia section under Vice President of the United States. Peter Grey 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This does not qualify as a speedy delete. Wikipedia has specific rules about that. Turnstep 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article, and the categories. Turnstep 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN Well, I found it amusing at least... I thought it was gonna be partisan junk but it's clearly intended as pure humor. --W.marsh 15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the article, merge anything useful to Vice Presidents .... Perhaps there was something funny in earlier edits, but now its only two entries (useless as a list). --William Allen Simpson 07:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The funny edit was this one, for future reference. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Humour is so difficult to categorise - I strongly disagree with Tito's comment and think that it's the two entries version that has comedy value. MLA 09:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • We could BJAODN both versions, I guess. Melchoir 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • So long as we don't BJADON the newly expanded version which wouldn't qualify under the J. MLA 10:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Make into category and delete.Septentrionalis 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - too little real material to make into either a list or a category. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Weak Keep - who cares?- Puss'nPurpleBoots 19:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) - Puss'nPurpleBoots 00:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I expanded the article.

• Are these events notable in and of themselves?

• Well, the Burr-Hamilton incident happened 202 years ago, and it is still being talked about today. So, I would say that is a big yes.

Under what circumstances would this topic come up for discussion? I wouldn't even try to guess.-Puss'nPurpleBoots 22:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• The wikipedia has an article on Dan Quayle's famous misspelling -- potatoe. Is that more important than Cheney shooting a guy, and then delaying the arrival of the Police long enough that his blood alcohol level would have returned to normal if he had been drinking?

• Various other contributors have argued here that there shouldn't be a list because only two VPOTUS have shot people. Actually though these are the only VPOTUS shooting incidents that are well known. I have an open mind as to the possibility that there were other incidents which aren't well known. I am sure I am not the only one who wonders how many known incidents there have been. The proper place for that info is not the Dick Cheney article or the Aaron Burr article. -- Geo Swan 20:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to make a point for keeping this article or are you soliciting information?-Puss'nPurpleBoots 22:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• (1) I think the article should be kept. (2) I would like to know if there were more than the two incidents. -- Geo Swan 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have a brilliant idea! I'll start a List of U.S. Republican Presidents named "George Bush". Sure, there are only two entries, but maybe someday there will be more! And maybe there have been Bushes in the past that I don't know about! Melchoir 22:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that is a brilliant idea. I think it is a disrespectful attempt at sarcastic mockery. Did you even read my rewrite of the article? I did you the courtesy to take your contributions seriously. I strongly urge you to show the same courtesy to other wikipedia contributors.
• The question of whether other sitting VPOTUS shot people is not a ridiculous one. Duelling used to be popular. Lincoln was the first POTUS to have a security detail. It is quite possible that earlier VPOTUS engaged in duels that weren't publicized, maybe because no one died. Most duels were not fatal. -- Geo Swan 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If it was funny in earlier versions, its not now. Too boring and unnotable to keep. Can be re-created if and when US VPs start shooting people regularly, which may not be as far off as we think. Herostratus 17:41, 22 February 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 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best Friends...Different Personalities

Complete nonesense and a hoax. Airing on Disney in 2008? Google picks up no matches. Vulturell 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vulturell 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yes, I'm sure that a show that won't air until 2008 already has a time slot... *rolls eyes*. --Kinu 06:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  07:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. I'm also sure they don't shoot a show to air in 2008 two years in advance. Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it is verified. Bobby1011 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wild and implausible speculation. -- Mithent 23:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though it is amusing User:Coinman

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 Speedied. android79 15:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Elite Roleplaying Awards

This seems to be a non-notable list of roleplaying awards (within one group) that consists mainly of questionable copyright images. No at all encyclopedic. --Martyman-(talk) 06:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-encyclopaedic vanity violation.  (aeropagitica)  07:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, now images are gone there's even less there. -- Mithent 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by MacGyverMagic, csd g1 (patent nonsense). - Bobet 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudha

Obviously not a legitimate entry. What is this article talking about? JackO'Lantern 06:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. JackO'Lantern 06:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  07:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, CSD G1. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:45, 15 February 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trigamy

Unsigned band, dead website, article is trash. Zambaretzu 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, WP:MUSIC-failing, and WP:VSCA-ousness. Same goes for the vanity "mad f0t0sh0p p1cz0r" of themselves. --Kinu 07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{db-band}} candidate. WP:Music violation - no albums, singles or notable members. One demo does not a notable career make.  (aeropagitica)  07:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, tagged as {{db-band}}, and article image tagged as lacking licensing info. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:43, 15 February 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 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thaloc (mythology)

Looks like a hoax. No online information on the critter that is not copied from Wikipedia, and no apparent offline sources either: I got here from this discussion. Amphis 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete [15] seems to indicate "Thaloc" was an aztec temple. Tool (band) makes a vague reference to "Thaloc teardrops" on there page in reference to a trip to aztec ruins. This use of the word does seem to be made-up. I know some off-the-beaten-path subjects are hard to find on the net, but we need some sources to prove it's validity. Otherwise, it's a wiki-hoax on the 10 different mirror sites I found. ---J.Smith 07:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a mispelling of Tlaloc--Mr Fink 16:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - deliberate hoax, very minor occult reference (some individual occult groups have very personal views about their favorite mythologies) or fiction masquerading as real-world mythology. Unverifiable at the very least - Skysmith 12:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified -- Astrokey44|talk 14:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a hoax, I've never heard of the "thaloc" until today, and I've never seen any Egyptian art featuring foxes, let alone foxes with wings. That, and Egyptian mythology, pardon, "religious superstition," never mentions angels or devils. --Mr Fink 16:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The letter 'c' is seldom used in either current standard or E. Wallis Budge's transcriptions from ancient Egyptian. Suspect it may be misspelled for Tlaloc also. Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Tlaloc is an Aztec god, but this article isn't about Tlaloc - it's about a nonexistent Egyptian god. "Thalocian", in particular, has zero Google hits that aren't Wiki mirrors. Zetawoof 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it sounds more than a little Mary Sueish, in my opinion. And general consensus seems to be that no one's heard of this thing before. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 01:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:16, 16 February 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 after discounting sockpuppet votes, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninjutsu (Naruto)

A massive, wholly unencyclopedic list of every single jutsu from a long-running anime/manga series, complete with overspecific descriptions and an utter lack of context. While Naruto is notable, this list of every single jutsu from the series is pure listcruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• No vote I can't get worked up over this, but check out the rest of {{Naruto info}}. Melchoir 10:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep perhaps it could be edited down and sorted to resemble List of Pokémon attacks (which sorts attacks rather than just giving their type within the entry). Needs serious cutting, though. Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I may not find it interesting, but someone who wasted about four hours of his life on it must think differently. Bobby1011 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft... "wasted" is right.--Isotope23 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete with extreme prejudice. I have no idea why this is encyclopedic. "verbose" might be a more apt term. aa v ^ 21:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NG, vancarlimospacecraft Avi 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm. WriterFromAfar755 23:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Avi. Stifle 23:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Avi, and suggest that the author try Geocities Ergot 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I hope that this doesn't come off as too defensive or hostile. To those who think it's not encyclopedic, what makes it not so (besides being very long and fictional)? I (and probably most other frequent Naruto editors) realize that there's a problem with article length, but nobody has a good, efficient solution other than splitting up the pages. --Pentasyllabic 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'm very new to Wikipedia, but I've read through the guidelines for deletion and I don't see anything that applies... could someone explain the issue here? What is 'listcruft'? What makes self-acknowledged list like that in Baby_of_the_House acceptable and this one not? I'm not a Naruto maniac, and I found this (via Google) while I was trying to make head or tail of it... i.e. it was somewhat useful and also as noted clearly represents a lot of work. Why does it need to go?
• KEEPKEEPKEEP Why should anyone delete this?! This is a TON of EXTREMELY useful information in regards to Naruto! It's just plainly unfair to tear it down after so much work has obviously been put into it!
• Strong Keep It may need a bit of organization, but that doesn't justify deleting the whole thing. A ton of work was put into this, and you want to destroy it seemingly because you don't care. SA9097
• Strong Keep I'm currently working on reorganising. Besides, I think it's very useful for those interested in Naruto. --JadziaLover 11:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Information worthy of being kept, as part of Wikipedia being a resource for people trying to learn more about popular culture. ~GMH talk to me 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I might be willing to go along with those saying it's listcruft if there were a Wiki resource for anime similar to what Memory-Alpha.org does for Star Trek, but there isn't that I've seen. Plus I have found this article useful when trying to refresh my memory on what occured in remote backissues of the manga, and having it here was much better than having it at an ad-laden, inefficiently designed website like NarutoFan. Plus it exemplifies one of Wikipedia's strengths: a traditional encyclopedia would have a very weak main article on Naruto, if any at all. Articles like this strengthen Wikipedia's position as a reference of note for popular culture. Istewart 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's really informative if you are a fan of the series, and you will not find all this information compiled in this way elsewhere on the Internet. It also explains the translated names of all the Jutsus, wich is really interesting. I see no pourpose of deleting this. Mark the Echidna 15:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP What's the freakin point scrubbin' the list of the techniques?! Just now I'm using reference from this to make techniques of my own (like, inspiring it from them or taking their Kanji symbols). If this is gone, all the signs will point at you Man in Black... You should consider looking at the Naruto characters page! Datavi X 12:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - Great information for those interested in this subject! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.141.63 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thaloc

It's a "disambiguation page" linking to one other article, and that article looks like a hoax. See the AfD page for Thaloc (mythology) [16]. Amphis 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This looks like a hoax that's been spreading around wikis. G-search reveals almost only wiki-mirrors. ---J.Smith 07:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems like a word/name used by a few people for various things, but I can't substantiate its meaning. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. I can't believe I worked on this disambiguation page. I should've known that first entry was a hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable Bobby1011 15:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:V. Ikkyu2 20:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my vote on Thaloc (mythology). Zetawoof 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:17, 16 February 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. W.marsh 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Freedom Coalition

Unnotable group. A google search for "American Freedom Coalition" brings 950 hits, including Wikipedia articles. It contains only one source discussing the the groups view on communism. If this is a large group of like minded people, it isn't asserted in the article or on google. Any relevant data should be merged with Robert Grant, the rest of the unsourced should be deleted. Arbustoo 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, group was founded by several notable people in American politics. Bad ideas 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "Its first activity, orchestrated by direct-mail expert Richard Viguerie, was a massive fundraising effort for the Nicaraguan contras and Oliver North ..."[17]. Notable enough. Adrian Lamo ·· 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe someone should consider adding that to the article... If true that would indeed be notable and strong grounds for a keep... but right now there is no case for notability in the article(I personally reject the assertion that notability is confered by the fact this group was established by several minorly notable people).--Isotope23 20:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bad ideas. All that name-dropping makes it notable. Melchoir 07:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 09:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Its founders make it notable enough. Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bad ideas. --Craig Stuntz 13:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep somewhat notable Bobby1011 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian, Bad Ideas. Monicasdude 18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is notable Yuckfoo 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable back in the day. -AKMask 03:05, 16 February 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. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coalition for Religious Freedom

One sentence article of unnotable and no longer existing front group. A google search for "Coalition for Religious Freedom" "robert grant" bring 330 hits (includes Wikipedia articles). This organization should not be confused with "International Coalition for Religious Freedom," which brings up thousands of hits. Arbustoo 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Grant is an influential figure in American politics. Bad ideas 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Grant is, but this group of 330 google hits isn't. Merge any important information (the whole article is ONE sentence), delete article. Arbustoo 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Notable organization. Keep and expand. --Jason Gastrich 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Who let the trolls out? --Chuck Hastings 06:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete With support like that... FeloniousMonk 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. - WarriorScribe 02:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable leaders in a notable org. --Chuck Hastings 06:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Jason has a long documented history of trying to sway AfDs. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - notable people, non-notable group. After deleting this, this info ought to be merged into lehaye and grant pages. -- Pierremenard 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn group. --Terence Ong 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oh, and your allegations only need to be said once, Arbustoo. ---J.Smith 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to International Coalition for Religious Freedom (as soon as the article actually gets written) (I don't know when I'll have time.) Grandmasterka 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as a nn organization --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Two non-redlinked founders and defense of a controversial outfit seems keepable to me. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep somewhat notable. Bobby1011 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

According to...? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I removed the tag not NPOV because I don't see how the 2 sentences which currently comprise this stub are not NPOV. I also removed the tag Clean up because it is already listed as a stub. Bobby1011 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Grant may be notable, but his defunct front organization from the 80's is not.--Isotope23 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Organization appears at least minimally notable, and google searches are not terribly effective in identifying newsworthy events of the 1980s. Monicasdude 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be notable? In what way? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• keep please it is a notable organization agree with adrian lamo Yuckfoo 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why. Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Isotope23. Stifle 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Needs to be expanded, not merged. There's more information that can be added. -AKMask 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article gives no evidence of verifiability. --W.marsh 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to A Christmas Album (Bright Eyes album) Adrian Lamo ·· 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Christmas Album

Delete. This article should be deleted because the correct title of the album is A Christmas Album and there is already an article for it. Andland 07:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to A Christmas Album (Bright Eyes album); I'd do it myself, but I don't know if I should interrupt the AfD. Melchoir 10:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: That's fine, I'm happy to interrupt for a good cause :) Redirected per User:Melchoir. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:28, 15 February 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 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FN P90 in popular culture

Listcruft. A list of every single time a particular object (in this case, a firearm) has appeared in any piece of fiction, no matter how minor that appearance. As such, this is an arbitrary list that cannot ever be complete, making it inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOT and the deletion policy.

The introduction is the only vaguely encyclopedic part of this article, and that text already appears in FN P90 (the article this was split from, so no merge is necessary). As merging this into FN P90 would be to the detriment of that article, this article needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-encyclopaedic list; there appears to be no research value to the page, as it could grow to be huge without ever being complete.  (aeropagitica)  08:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and Question Over the last couple of months, entries on popular firearm articles listing popular culture (game, movie) appearances have gone from minimal to common and voluminous. I am beginning to feel that a formal policy discussion needs to be held regarding how much of that sort of info is appropriate; right now, I know of no WP standards on the matter, and I fear creeping listitis will overwhelm many articles' other content. Feedback here or my talk page on where this sort of discussion should/can be held to try and get a consensus, or info about similar policies elsewhere, appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert 08:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This page seems to me to be noteworthy, if the items of fiction listed are noteworthy. If the FN P90 is iconic, then examples of its iconicness seem to me to be noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. List is encyclopedic, as there is discussion on how the use is notable, and how use of the FN P90 is iconic and seperate from the majority of firearms. Unencylopedic entries should be removed from the list to improve the article as a whole, but this is not grounds to remove the whole article. --Barberio 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep worthy of an article. Bobby1011 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; nonencyclopedic, unverified and in many ways unverifiable. Isn't deciding which appearances are "authentic" and which may be lookalikes original research? Monicasdude 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• There are no P-90 lookalikes. There are airsoft pellet gun replicas, and stage gun blank firing props, but no other actual firearm looks anything like a P-90. The list given merely lists what name the weapon was used under in the movie/game in question, which is often not "P-90" for reasons of fictional license. Georgewilliamherbert 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with comment the pop culture content is a stain on Wikipedia, that much I agree with. However, pages like this are necessary - to delete them is to court disaster. I hope I need not remind MiB of the furious arguments and revert wars (Talk:FN P90) that occurred the last time we tried to do this. For those who don't know, all the cruft formerly quarantined on the Pop Culture page ended up spilling over into the serious article at FN P90. It required careful monitoring and maintenance as a result. People from both sides of the argument would revert constantly, and it took weeks to stabilize the situation. Let's not open the flood gates again. --Tronno (talk | contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic, WP:NG Avi 21:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as long as the list is fairly fairly sizeable and has some good detail, as this one does, then I think its worthy of keeping. --O.F.Fascist 22:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These are standardized and relevant part of firearm articles. Many firearms do not have any film/game use at all, so the ones that do are especially notable among firearms. When these sections get to long, they are moved to a sub-page such as this. Ve3 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is interesting to read about, and many other firearms have their own sections in popular culture Aznfurball 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If the firearm had a noticable effect in popular culture, there's no doubt that the topic is worthy enough for a seperate article by itself. Besides, the content looks good too, I see no valid grounds for deletion. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 18:21, 19 February 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 del WP:CSD A7 "vanity" mikka (t) 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron David

Delete - is this noteworthy? Kukini 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A7. Article makes no attempt to claim notability. Vslashg (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

why? delete this is useful for some people in the philippines. though it may not be a national issue but im sure it help me a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.177.230 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Delete. Not notable. eLNuko 09:10, 15 February 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 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All has fallen

Non-notable band. Was originally tagged as prod, but was contested by Michaeljones. See talk page for his case. Cnwb 08:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn band. --Terence Ong 08:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Music--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability error, try again later. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 14:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bobby1011 15:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and WP:MUSIC... Talk makes claims to WP:MUSIC notability, but provides no evidence to support these claims.--Isotope23 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{db-band}} candidate. "Their first studio album is set for release in the summer of 2006"? WP:Music violation - two albums with a major label or one with a notable Indie label; no singles or notable members.  (aeropagitica)  17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• this band was the key factor in the street metal music scene and its origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljones (talk • contribs)
• many other reasons were posted in the admins talk to me thread, sorry for not signing earliar, im new to this all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michealjones (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] CDO2 Limited

Advertising. Not notable. Sleepyhead 08:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete does not appear notable. Fagstein 08:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP; Google test inspires no confidence in notability either. Melchoir 10:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No discussion regarding notability of company or product, WP:CORP violation.  (aeropagitica)  17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I added an initial version of this entry because the existing entry for CDO2 I discovered was even more obscure. The neutral tone indicates no advertisement intended. - Unsigned comment by 217.196.234.93. User has edited only this and linked articles.
• Weak keep Links to independent articles added to provide some depth. 213.55.29.237 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC). User has edited only this and linked articles.

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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Not notable as per WP:CORP eLNuko 09:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, per ~800 Google results and recent media coverage[18] -- again possibility of non-English information that we're not seeing. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-corp. --Terence Ong 11:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:20, 16 February 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 01:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lingobit Localizer

Advertising eLNuko 09:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NoIdeaNick 10:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam — Graibeard ^(talk) 10:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 11:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising.  (aeropagitica)  17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Blnguyen 02:21, 16 February 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 01:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hosseign Feghhee

del nonverifiable vanity by anon. No traces of such prominent person in various spellings, with the notable exception of "Hossein Feghhi, undergraduate student". mikka (t) 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, vanity--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If we WP:AGF, there might be non-English evidence that we're not picking up on Google. Unfortunately, the author seems to have a dynamic IP, so there's not much hope for easy clarification. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with a not-verified tag. If the article is correct, it should stay, and perhaps someday someone will verify it. RIPE says 213.217.41.11 is from an ISP in Tehran, so I'm thinking the author and/or subject is not a UCLA undergrad. Melchoir 11:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you start doing this, wikipedia will be flooded with "nonverified" hoax celebrities from Burkina Faso and Mongolia. mikka (t) 17:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 15:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless information is verified. Where is the proof of the recent investigation that demonstrates the subject knows more than one million words and idioms?  (aeropagitica)  17:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:21, 16 February 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. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam's apple (disambiguation)

Disambig pages with only two items are essentially meaningless, particularly when there's little chance of it ever being enlarged. Nothing currently links to it. Vicarious 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but this probably should have been prodded, if not speedied. Melchoir 11:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what prodded mean, unless you're referring to bugging an admin to just do it. As for speedied I'm not familiar with the process, and I have a knack for thinking things are useless and people disagree. Vicarious 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment that's "prodded" as in {{prod}}, Vicarious. See Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per my nom. Vicarious 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Page has been expanded. Vicarious 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  17:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I thought disambiguation pages were meant to differentiate between two or more articles that had the same name...Jcuk 23:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You're missing the issue. Yes disambig pages are a generally good thing but when there are only two pages listed to differentiate between it's significantly more efficient to automatically go to one page (the more common one) and add a note at the top of it about the other page. This has already happened, and in fact the disambig page is not even linked to at the moment. Vicarious 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and fix links. It's true that disambiguation pages are supposed to have at least 3 links. Vicarious has raised this on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and everybody is in agreement that there's nothing inherently evil with disambiguation pages with two links, and they should be left in place where they are created by historical accident. Moreover, "Primary topic" pages are supposed to be infrequent, and only after consensus building. They are currently less than 3% of disambiguated topics. --William Allen Simpson 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Everybody is not in agreement. First off, only 5 people (including you and I) have even commented, so at the very least 20% (me) disagree, and secondly you're misreading some of the other people if you think they're opposed to the idea. There's a lot of caveats to most of their arguments and at least one person hasn't picked a side. Irregardless I did not use a nonexistent policy in my arguments to delete this page and I think it is inappropriate of you to use a nonexistant concensus to decide this page be kept. Vicarious 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Heck, a simple search found an album and a couple more songs, and there should be a "See also" to Forbidden Fruit (which has a reciprocal "See also"). That is another good reason for not deleting such pages. --William Allen Simpson 18:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I find several of the additions to the disambig page dubious that's not an issue for this page and in light of there no longer being only two items I withdraw my vote. Vicarious 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Vicarious, you came late to the discussion, made up a "precedent" that 2 article disambiguation pages should be deleted (although there is no guideline anywhere that proposes or permits that action), and were wrong about whether "there's little chance of it ever being enlarged." Clearly, you didn't even search for existing references: missing several songs, another album, and a horse. --William Allen Simpson 06:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • First off, you said I made up a precedent and then said there is no such guideline which are very different things, but I did not claim either of them. In my nomination I did not say, delete as per so and so example, or delete as per so and so guideline, I simply gave my reasoning for why I thought it should be deleted. In case you I haven't been clear thus far I'll spell it out, I have never claimed any precedent or policy because neither of them exist. As you pointed out on the disambig talk someone is using this case as a precedent but I have no part of it, and before you said something had no knowledge of it.
      As for the additions you made to the disambig page I find all of them dubious. Especially the album you refer to, which doesn't yet exist so you put up a red link for it (the article not the album). I made a point of not reverting all your additions because I feared it might seem like I was being petty but I truly think that page only has two legitamate links. Further discussion of those links belongs at that page though, see you there. Vicarious 12:39, 17 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:51] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Marvel Database Project

• Previous deletion debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvel Database Project

The article notes itself that "just over 27% of the Database Project's traffic comes from Wikipedia". This is hardly surprising given most of JamieHari (talk · contribs) contributions are inserting links to it across the wikipedia, and he is the site owner and editor in chief, as well as main contributor to this article. The article Marvel Database Project has been the subject of a deletion debate where consensus was delete and has been speedied twice since. The page is vanity, spam and fails WP:WEB. I would speedy again but the page has grown and so can't be thought of as a simple recreation, given User:Xaosflux's comments on the talk page. Delete. Hiding talk 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep somewhat notable in its field. Bobby1011 15:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Curious; how so? I'd certainly never heard of it before. Where has it been covered in the comics press then? Hiding talk 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just a quick example, IGN has linked us here and here. --JamieHari 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's trivial coverage, to be fair. It's not coverage of the site as a resource, which is something one could reference in an article on the site, it's just a link to the site. Hiding talk 20:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed that the article isn't about the MDP project, but IGN is very much a trusted news source in the comics industry and would likely not link to the Marvel Database Project if they felt the resources were inaccurate, out-of-date or the site itself could pose some controversy as a cruft-site.

• Sadly, per WP:WEB those mentions are trivial. When Marvel Database Project is covered in feature articles, feel free to come back. I'll even help you write the article. Until then, I'm sorry, but it fails notability. As to the two ign articles in question, they're written by someone using a pseudonym, I can find no bio details of the author, it's entirely possible the author is a user of the site, and ign would fall into the dubious portion of our reliable sources guidelines. I don't want to rain on your parade, like I say, get the coverage to be included here and I'll welcome you back. At the moment, it feels to me like the site is using Wikipedia to get a leg up, something I hope you will agree is bad form, and also against policy. Hiding talk 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and page protect it this time. I'll probably check it out and it is a cool idea, but that doesn't make it notable.--Isotope23 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't yet see any evidence of it being important enough for an article. If in the future there is verifiable evidence of it being important then it can have an article, but only after that evidence is presented. As it is the article is full of original research. - Taxman ^Talk 20:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft.Blnguyen 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; vanispamcruftisement ergot 02:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• I am very very sympathetic to reference sites, (the notion that they should be subject to WP:WEB as with any other site is one I do not agree with) and don't consider low Alexa rank (this one seems to have about 172,000?) as an argument to support a vote against a reference. But what I am not seeing in my searches is evidence that this site is regarded as a reference by others. If a link from official Marvel sites (more than just a fan link) were evidenced, it would help. If the articles had sourcing (for example Captain America, an article you'd expect to have depth (it does) and sourcing (it does not... all the facts in the bio have no ties to particular issues or sourcing of any kind), it would be more likely to be a scholarly reference. I think there is a great deal of work put into the site by the users (considerably more than Yellowikis, which I voted Keep for) and the article here shows a good deal of work, but it's by one person. And the community has come to consensus that it should not be kept, more than once. So, with some considerable regret userify. If it was a reference site that's referencable, I would have advocated keep. I am glad this was not speedied so it could be discussed. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Lar, thank you very much for looking more deeply into our site to see our value. We have worked really hard, but not all of our pages are completely polished yet. The information is still there, but some typos exist and some pictures and sources are missing. I, too, have watched our Alexa rating, but it seems to make no sense... We were at about 80,000 4 months ago, but our rank keeps falling. I have traffic analysis software that says our traffic has since doubled. I think Alexa is a VERY poor indicator of success. We are more well known than Hiding would believe, I have 'chatted' online with several folks I just met, who knew about our site before I even told them... (It was a nice feeling...) --JamieHari 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to an acceptable recreation. I sympathise—I can see that a lot of work has gone into writing the piece. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and like all encyclopedias has certain editorial standards. I agree with Taxman that in this instance they have not been met; specifically, there is a lack of external verification to indicate the subject's notability. Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and verifiability have deliberately been set extremely low—far lower than for any other serious encyclopedia, to my knowledge. But they are standards, nevertheless. When MDP is sufficiently noteworthy that people independently write about it in reviews or critiques in reputable publications, I think most WPns would be glad to have a referenced article. I also note the point that there are articles on WP which, like MDP, do not meet articlespace policies. This however would seem to be a reason to improve them or delete them, not to allow other articles of a similar nature to join them. Regards ENCEPHALON 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ENCEPHALON, You certainly make good reasoning for the policies that exist. I certainly agree that the level of standards should remain as high as possible without excluding too much content. My contention is that the MDP IS more notable than has so far been shown. Here I have added a few examples of notable and independant sites that have indeed written articles citing our project as a reference. IGN, a long-standing and trusted resource surely should count as one vote for our notariaty. Similar articles have surfaced in other major internet publications as well. I will continue to hunt for them and add them to the list. Hopefully, this will shed more light on the subject of our notariaty. --JamieHari 05:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that, Jamie. The IGN link is promising, isn't it? However, it seems to me that it does not talk about MDP, which is what one would hope for from an external reference that is meant to "do a lot of work", so to speak. I'm rather afraid it doesn't materially change my assessment, Jamie. But don't worry, WP will probably be around for a long while, and the moment you have the required refs... :-) ENCEPHALON 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Incidentally, JamieHari, you are quite right about Alexa. There are (too) many folks who seem to regard Alexa rankings and google hits as some sort of indicator of "encyclopedicness". This is incorrect and unhelpful, for reasons others have written on more elegantly than I. The test of encyclopediability, if one may call it that, is compliance with the article space policies WP:V (and related guidelines), WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. A page that meets them should not be deleted even if it had no google hits. A page that doesn't shouldn't be kept even if it had a million hits. ENCEPHALON 04:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, even pointless, empty websites can get a million hits if the populace gets wind of it as a new fad. I merely intended it to bolster my arguement that I am not the only member of my website. he he he... --JamieHari 05:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: The deletion of the MDP page on Wikipedia.

Keep.

I thank you all for not speedy deleting and for the chance to discuss this further. I would certainly like to apologize for adding the page myself. I didn't, at the time, realise it would go against the applicable policy. This time when I added it, I waited until our site was of more substantial value to the community at large. Our site has now had over 55,000 edits and nearly 2.5 million page views. It is not even a year old yet and has already made it to Wikipedia's list of largest wikis at 72nd place.

I had seen the Memory Alpha page, a similar wiki-site about Star Trek. When I first added the Marvel Database Project, I was probably wrong to do so. Not that it wasn't a valid page, but that I was too eager and the project was not YET worth a Wikipedia article. I believe the situation has changed with our recent efforts. The Memory Alpha page was my inspiration to make our page, I figured wiki projects held a special place in the heart of Wikipedians. Their site, too, was added by their (co)founder. User:MinutiaeMan / MinutiaeMan userpage on Memory Alpha.

I assure you our Marvel project is not cruft. We are growing at a very good rate. We have new editors all the time and we have worked very hard to build a respectable database.

I emplore you to reconsider your delete votes and consider other projects of similar nature that have their own articles. The damage was done when I created the article myself, but I believe the value of our project still is there...

Thank you,

--JamieHari 07:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Has this project been featured by a major source? Nifboy 05:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I had nominated this for CSD, and it was deleted back in 2005-11-24. at the time the article consisted of nothing but a logo. In interest of this debate only I have speedily restored all prior versions back in to the page history. This does NOT mean that I endorse these versions, and have placed a talk page notice that they are not to be reverted to. In this article's current form I vote Don't Speedily Delete, but don't really have a specific keep or delete opinion. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:07, 22 February 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. Whore was suggested, but male prostitute makes more sense to me. In any case, that's an editorial decision beyond the scope of AFD. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:56] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Manwhore

Dic def Delete -Doc ^ask? 11:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn slang dicdef and Melvin Manhoef doesn't have an article to move it into. MLA 11:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable slang. Edgar181 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn slang. Whore is an equal opportunity term and covers enough ground, thank you very much. PJM 14:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn slang. --Terence Ong 14:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to whore. No objection to the deletion of article first (Note:this is not a delete vote). youngamerican (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite The term is certainly notable and has different conotations to the generic term whore. The article is, however, wonderful. Bobby1011 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to whore per above. This article is great, though. Doctor Whom 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to male prostitute. --Malthusian (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to whore. 64.192.107.242 18:45, 22 February 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 Consensus that this should not exist as a standalone article, but no consensus as to whether it should be merged and redirected or outright deleted, so default action is merge and redirect. Babajobu 08:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMeta Corporation

Advertising. Not notable. Do not meet WP:CORP Sleepyhead 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, article is blatant self-promotion written principally by Emeta marketing ( as the username, Emetamktg, implies). The whole article is POV fluff - revolutionized, leading provider, honored, accolades, provides the only - and on and on it goes. — Graibeard ^(talk) 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article certainly is an ad now and I have flagged it as such. But WP:CORP includes "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indexes, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies." Does the Red Herring listing not count here? I'm leaning towards keep and stub, but willing to consider other arguments at this point. --Craig Stuntz 13:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Although a Rewrite would be ideal, I don't think anyone except paid employees of the company would be very interested, so Strong Delete. Bobby1011 15:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Emetamktg just added the following to the article: "On February 15th, 2006, Macrovision Corporation (Nasdaq: MVSN) announced that it will acquire eMeta." --Craig Stuntz 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge although I'm hesitant becuase of notability issues. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:56, 24 February 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 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Angus Glaum

Zero google hits, zero Nexis hits, zero ABI/INFORM hits. This guy is either fake or non-notable. Either way, he shouldn't have a page here. Uucp 11:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 13:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable bio, most probaly a hoax. --Terence Ong 14:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete not really notable. Bobby1011 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original submitter has a history of copyvios and nonsense, so likely a hoax. --Doco 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 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 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katabatik

• Delete: Non-notable start-up record label with no notable bands and a website that doesn't even list any CDs. Careful counting Google hits since this word apparently has a few other meanings. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, ad. --Terence Ong 12:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  17:52, 15 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Contact-field microscopy

Delete. Hoax article. Midgley 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any non-Wikimirror Google hits, and even if this were a real thing this particular article is just unsourced OR. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:14, 22 February 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 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhoderick Gates

Rhoderick Gates is a vanity page with verifiability issues.

Unknown, except that it was led from 1997 to 2002 by the Labour Party activist Rhoderick Gates...

• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 13:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as nn. --Craig Stuntz 13:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as nn. -- Mithent 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as being somewhat notable in Australia. Bobby1011 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Notable in Australia with 0 Google hits for Melbourne Socialist Brigade? Delete. Punkmorten 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Could be vanity, could also be {{db-attack}} material, looking at the biography on show. In either case, the subject is non-notable.  (aeropagitica)  17:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Rhoderick Gates is supposed to holding a press conference in Edinburgh this Friday at which the UK Socialist Worker's Party will be sending people to ensure attention. The Socialist Worker will soon be advertising his activities because the SWP wants activities in Edinburgh covered and Stop The War Coalition will be sending anti-war demonstrators there as well. I suggest you wait and see what happens, the mainstream press doesn't report everything.User: Merlov 6:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as nn ergot 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn abakharev 10:44, 16 February 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 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPDA

Advertising eLNuko 12:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 13:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 00:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:24, 16 February 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 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skitz O'Fuel

Delete. The article relates to a member of a band that was recently successfully nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thick (band)) due to failing the WP guidelines for notability. The person in question has no other significance, as far as I can see. Google delivers 100 hits ([19]) for "Skitz O'Fuel", most of them related to Thick, with the recently deleted WP-stub appearing among the TOP10. Johnnyw 12:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 14:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lbbzman 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 15:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable artiste, fails WP:Music with lack of albums and singles released.  (aeropagitica)  17:58, 15 February 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ananta Das Goswami

Unverifiable [20] Delete -Doc ^ask? 13:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Um you have to google for "Goswami" [21] as well as "Gaswami". http://babukishan.com/lineage.htm is the best-looking reference, but it doesn't really look like a totally reliable source. Kappa 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 13:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Just because I, an American, can't easily verify the career of a 300 year old Indian musician doesn't mean he isn't notable. However, the author had several months to beef up the article and did nothing. So, Weak delete based on this version and the author can try again another time. Thatcher131 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep probably notable in his own field and nation. Bobby1011 15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No discussion as to notability of subject or of contributions to music or philosophy, all assertions that require factual verification to be substantive content on an encyclopædia.  (aeropagitica)  18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without independent verification. Gamaliel 18:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This doesn't seem to be vanity or something. The author of the article (User:Krishna.Bandi) has not indulged in any kind of vanity creation. Creating an article on a baul of Bengal born in 1700 doesn't help the author in any way. The article Music of Bengal (which was never edited by the author) also mentions this baul - "Other Bengali music, shared by West Bengal and Bangladesh, is from the poetry and songs of Ananta Das Goswami, Kabir...". Give the article benefit of doubt. May be Merge with Music of Bengal or Baul? utcursch | talk 11:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC). Doc's arguments have convinced me to change my vote to Delete - delete it because it cannot be verified. I searched all available resources yesterday, but couldn't find anything about this baul. The few pages that Google returns have taken their content from Wikipedia - so, we are actually doing some harm by spreading possibly wrong information -- probably this man never existed/author typed in his name by mistake... utcursch | talk 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have miessed the point. This isn't about vanity but verifiability. WP:V and WP:CITE do not permit us to 'give the benefit of the doubt'. If anyone can verify this, I'm happy for it to be kept. --Doc ^ask? 12:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the verifiability issue is affected by the fact that most wikipedians are young white males (I read somewhere). This results in WP content being shaped by the inherent baises of its editors (virtually no articles on stage actors/actresses but dozens of articles on Star Wars, for example). I agree that in a perfect WP an editor would post more information, like influences that carry through to today's Indian music. I worry that by deleting things be cause "we" don't know about them, "we" (who are not very representative of humanity as a whole) are creating a biased result. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Most subjects on wikipedia I know nothing about - and I don't nominate for deletion. This has nothing to do with the subject matter or my skin coulour gender or (lack of) youthfulness. If this article cannot be verified it should be deleted - if it can, then if shoudl stay. --Doc ^ask? 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Although WP is supposed to be a collaborative medium, applying that standard means that if an author writes an article about an obscure subject that can't be readily googled, he has to get it right the first time or else. I voted above weak delete because the article hadn't been edited in months, but I think we should be open to the possibility that the article standard and AfD process will sometimes reinforce systemic bias. Thatcher131 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for combating systematic bias, and I'm great believer that Google isn't the be all and end all of verification (a citation from a book or reputable journal is good too). But, what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't require the verification of articles on 'obscre' subjects, or that they should hang arround for weeks waiting for someone to verify them? That way lies hoaxes. Indeed, it is procisely where the subject is obscure and few wikipedians would recognise errors and inaccuracies that we must be rigourous in demanding authors verify and cite. --Doc ^ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: The article in its current state needs Expansion, not deletion. Google, and any other Internet search engines can't be considered the *only* tool for verifiability, not all cultures/issues of the world can be googled. The article should be expanded with references to books. Systemic bias is difficult to counter. Thanks. --Ragib 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another reference, though it sounds quite like the Music of Bengal sentence. --Ragib 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point again. The choise is not beween expansion or deletion, but between verification and deletion. You say 'the article should be expanded with references to books' - and that google is not the only source, I agree, but can it be, and are there other sources? If it can be verified, then keep it, if not then delete it for now. Systematic bias is not the issue - the reliability of information is. --Doc ^ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article deserves more time to have a knowledgeable editor to add the information. This article is not vanity, nor promotion. By the definition of verifiability, a lot of stub articles would face the axe. But many of those initially unverifiable articles have later been expanded. Let the article expand. Thanks. --Ragib 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A knowledgable editor can always recreate it. It has been here unverified for almost 6 months, how much longer do you suggest? --Doc ^ask? 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Officially that's true. Unofficially, such an editor must also be knowledgable in speedy deletion and beaurocracy of DRV. As any new article, of a deleted name, stands a good chance of being speedy deleted. Even if you contest it successfully in DRV, you may have to wait a week before being "allowed" to edit the article again. --Rob 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Also keep the verificaton tag on. In point of unfortunate fact there are many unverified articles on Wikipedia. The solution is sometimes to tag, not delete. Tagging both alerts readers to be especially careful in considering the article's contents, and puts the article on the road to eventual improvement. Patience. A researcher, armed with nothing but the name, will come here someday and use the extra info provided to further his search -- and then, hopefully, return and footnote the article. Herostratus 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice theory, pity it hasn't worked after 6 months. How much longer would you give it? 6-12-18. And your theory only works if there is verification out there to be had (there isn't at the moment). What if the article is a hoax, or the guy is truely nn, then nothing will happen and we might be left with an unverified and potentially incorrect article indefinately. I'd say 6 months is long enough when there is no corroberation at all. --Doc ^ask? 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't have "no corroberation at all", we have at least one independent and reasonably notable-looking source. Kappa 18:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The nice theory is quite possibly true, but you could always find a few hundred exceptions if you look hard enough. Tintin (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete It's been here since last September. If no one has come up with a source by now, I think we should let it go. The fact that there are many unverified things on Wikipedia can't become a rationale for keeping things. I hate to flush things that might be good too, but it's gotta be verifiable. If someone finds sources in the future and can make a solid case, they can always recreate it. --Shadow Puppet 01:36, 23 February 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 replace with #redirect [[Curtain Call: The Hits]] {{R from song}}. Note that anybody could have done that. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Fack

Delete: Completely non-notable stub. The article on Curtain Call repeats almost verbatim what's here - and I don't think there's much else to be said about the song. Suntiger 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Curtain Call. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:15, 22 February 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, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OfficeDebo

Advertising eLNuko 13:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advert. Incidentally, it's a super-lame concept for an RPG; for this place and time, anyway. Perhaps the citizens of Middle Earth would find it intriguing. PJM 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Fold, staple, spindle, and Delete: advertisement for an online game lacking evidence of notability. WP:Importance. Barno 14:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• If this is advertising then HoboWars is as well. How come you let that one slide for so long? --InsanityCrisis 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability... and echo PJM. Who the heck wants to RPG their life? "OK, roll a D10... 5, you get 5 extra goals to complete before your next employee review." -or- "Can I multiclass Java Developer and Requirements Analyst?"--Isotope23 16:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very few Google hits Gerard Foley 21:08, 16 February 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HoboWars

Advertising --InsanityCrisis 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Advertising -- ODogg

• Need to be rewritten. Bobby1011 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've a little problem with this nom because the nominator seems to have done this in retaliation for the AfD of OfficeDebo... This was also done after the nominator blanked and vandalised the HoboWars site. AnonIP 82.38.91.15 engaged in a little vandalism too, as well as what appears to be a puppet vote. Alexa ranking for OfficeDebo is 136,505, lower than the 35,064 for HoboWars. I'm not convinced HoboWars is in anyway significant in the realm of online games, but this seems to be a bad faith nom. No vote right now, though I've slapped tags on HoboWars because the article is a mess.--Isotope23 16:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I may be wrong, but I think I've seen this on AfD before. TMS63112 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A little crufty, but no worse than RuneScape. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:19, 22 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Monkey Tennis

Delete. Fictional game created by fictional character. Monkeyman 14:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to I'm Alan Partridge. Keresaspa 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Keresapa. Thatcher131 14:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Keresapa. --Terence Ong 14:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, as suggested above. PJM 15:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect just get this shit outta my face. Bobby1011 15:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to I'm Alan Partridge and blank the text.  (aeropagitica)  18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. dbtfz^talk 04:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide references showing that this actually has any connection with I'm Alan Partridge Dlyons493 Talk 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the first one I could find [22].

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. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:10] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Mudlen End Studio Pottery

Advertising. Not notable. eLNuko 14:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, someone's written a book about it [23] Kappa 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the book is "collectors guide with prices" - which suggests it isn't an independent publication.Blnguyen 02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would it not be independent? Those won't be the original stock prices, they will be prices in the secondary market for collectors. Kappa 03:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This looks like a listing in preparation for some kind of auction Ruby 03:14, 16 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:10] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Healthconnect

Advertising. Posible copyright violation eLNuko 14:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Based on a quick google search this is a project by Kaiser that has attracted some detractors, including supposedly an insider at Kaiser. [24] It might be useful to have a good nonbiased article describing both sides of the issue. Suggest rewrite. Otherwise advert and NPOV. Thatcher131 14:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement, smells like a copyvio but I can't find the original text. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. PJM 12:23, 22 February 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 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slipknot (original band)

Delete nn band. Released only one EP (Slipnot (orignal record) / Slipknot (original record) - two identical articles), then faded. If the band article is deleted, the EP articles should be deleted too. Bruce1ee 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nn. --Johnnyw 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not WP:V and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC to boot. I'm not sure how to couple up an AfD, but I'd carry that delete over to the EP article as well.--Isotope23 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be verified. It's on the Revelation Records site and is available for download on the external link.

er both EP articles...--Isotope23 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn.Blnguyen 02:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article had more on the famous Slipknot than this band who fails to meet WP:NMG. It could possibly be added as a line in the Slipknot article. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete one EP and then pffft Ruby 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Let's think about bands that released one EP: Siege and Neanderthal, both important to the creaton of the power violence and grindcore genres, Last Rights, notable for ruling hard and being the last band that Choke from Slapshot was in that was good, Negative Approach barely released anything more than that, Straight Ahead, Antidote really only released one. The EP is the main format for hardcore punk, and it's common for bands to release only one before breaking up.

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. Punkmorten 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tzouannis

This page is a repeat of Nikos Tzouannis Deville (Talk) 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nikos Tzouannis. PJM 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• I took the liberty of doing the redirect. If anyone disagrees just go ahead and revert my changes.--Isotope23 16:35, 15 February 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 transwiki and delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [05:15] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Quicksort implementations

Wikipedia is not a code repository. This article is not encyclopedic content; it's useful, but belongs somewhere else, like the Great Compiler Shootout or Sourceforge or maybe Wikisource. bmills 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep extremely useful article. the code makes the point. there are other areas of code in WP. Mccready
• Delete or move to WikiSource or WikiBooks. This is not encyclopedic content. The Quicksort article already provides implementations in pseudocode, an imperative language, a functional language and a logical programming language. —Ruud 16:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd go better on WikiBooks than WikiSource, since most of it isn't sourced. --bmills 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment My understanding was that this was largely a defensive measure to deal with people constantly wanting to add a implementation of quicksort in their language of choice to the quicksort page - users are deflected here rather than deleting implementations off the quicksort page, and potentially righting revert wars over it. "somewhere else" is a good sentiment, but I would suggest it would be useful to figure out where exactly. Leland McInnes 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiBooks might provide the best fit — maybe there needs to be a "Programming examples" book there or something. I don't think it's useful to move inappropriate content to back alleys and dark corners of the encyclopedia; if people keep adding non-encyclopedic content, we need to point them toward Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, rather than toward articles with lower standards. --bmills 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not so much defending its inclusion on Wikipedia as suggesting that finding a suitable alternative will make the whole process smoother and easier. Wikibooks sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we should pursue that. Leland McInnes 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or move to WikiBooks — Wikipedia is not a code repository --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete to let it wander off and die where it will, per poster, Allan. If this goes to WikiBooks, fine. If people have to do their homework themselves, rather than copy it from Wikipedia — even better. :) --Mgreenbe 19:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  Comment The argument against X implementations pages is that anything interesting about the algorithm is already in X; anything interesting about the languages of implementation is already on respective pages. So all that leaves is a bunch of code: Wikipedia is not a source code repository.

  I agree, however, that some code is useful: in infinite loop, buffer overflow, and pointer, viz. this code with concrete, unambiguous semantics relevant to a particular point has this meaning. But implementations are reiterating what has been said in general in pseudocode.

  For example, the C in-place implementation of quicksort is interesting, but what is interesting about it is that the work is done in place; put it on the main page. Functional versions which make naive allocations are relevant to FP; the problem of aliasing and other optimizations of functional code should be mentioned there.

  Lastly, the copyright and licensing implications of posting code from a non-GFDL-compatible project make implementation listings a terrible idea.

  I think the existence of "defensive measures" is fairly silly. If we can keep the day and year pages free of vanity, we can keep implementations out of Wikipedia. --Mgreenbe 19:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. WP is not manual for a programmer. All similar "articles" has been deleted so far, AFAIK. As of its use as defensive agains constant adding: it doesn't improve Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 19:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Per Mgreenbe, and the GFDL isn't even compatible with the GPL:

Incompatibility with the GPL. It's GPL-incompatible in both directions. This means that you can't legally extract text from a GFDL'ed manual and put it into integrated help strings in a GPL'ed program. And you can't extract code or comments from a GPL'ed program and put it into a GFDL'ed manual. (Without getting explicit permission to relicense from every copyright-holding contributor, that is.) [25]

One of the fundamental principles of human/computer interface design is: Don't surprise the human. (Don't do the unexpected.) Here, the idea that Wikipedia content is "open and free", yet at the same time cannot be integrated into "free as in speech" GPL software due to license incompatibility (the two licenses being from the same organization, no less) goes against what most rational people will expect. Source code does NOT belong in Wikipedia. —Pradeep Arya (Talk | Contrib) 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per others above. I had hoped some form of compromise, such as putting all such content on Wikibooks, could be worked out to ease the process (as this policy should logically be enforced on several other such pages) and help avoid protracted debates. It now looks unlikely that I will be able to muster sufficient support for such a policy, especially in light of the GPL/GFDL issues. Given that such a policy is unlikely to be established, let's speed things to their end here and start on the other similar pages. Leland McInnes 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikisource (or books). Absoulutely do not delete. It would be preferable to keep & cleanup the page than to do that (it could be suitable to leave this as a main article under the already-detailed Quicksort article, but it may be too much of a fork). I think a transwiki is appropriate. --Karnesky
• Transwiki, e.g. to wikisource/wikibooks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-20 13:10Z
• Transwiki. Although not meant for an encyclopedia, the information is valuable. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 04:27, 21 February 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salem Street Burying Ground

Non-notable graveyard? ComputerJoe 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, do we need WP:CEMETERY guidelines now? Reading through the article, the only thing I could think of that would confer enough notability for a graveyard to be listed would be if several very notable people were buried there, or the graveyard was the site of some historical happening, or had some sort of general historical significance. Otherwise mention of it could simply be made in individual bios (i.e. person A is interred at graveyard B). Based on that, I think Salem Street Burying Ground falls short of those criteria, unless there are more nationally or internationally recognized historical figures interred there than are mentioned in the article.--Isotope23 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, old by USA standards but practically new compared to the range of British and European graveyards. Not much indication of historical significance. Only indication of notable burials there are one governor and one "war heroine" who doesn't appear in Wikipedia. I agree with Isotope23's reasoning. Barno 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article itself isn't written all that greatly, but it does seem to have some significance aside from just the people buried there. Peyna 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Isotope - Hahnchen 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A "registered historic place", old for being an American cemetery (and even quite old compared to many European ones), has a grave for an old Massachusetts governor and a Revolutionary War heroine Sarah Fulton (whatever that actually means). Seems notable enough. u p p l a n d 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Other than the category this was placed in, I could find no evidence this is a "registered historic place". I've added a verify tag because much of this article isn't sourced.--Isotope23 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[26] with the appropriate subpage implying it met federal historical preservation standards for block grant use. And if every subway and train station in the US qualifies as notable, I think Revolutionary War cemetaries would qualify, too. Monicasdude 20:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)\

Link should probably be placed on page if article is kept... gives it some sourcing/verification. I still don't think it's notable, but then again I don't think every subway, train station, and school in the US qualifies as notable either.--Isotope23 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The good thing is that notability is not an inclusion standard, especially for things. Peyna 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I managed to verify the NRHP claim and have posted the info on the article's talk page. I couldn't find a link suitable for a reference. Peyna 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)