Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] January 21
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christianesque
Political neologism. No sources, but seems to be used by one blogger. Creator has only a few edits on Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this article, otherwise people will start appending "-esque" to every other existing WP article, where will it end? Ruby 00:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for Ruby's precise reason. - Dharmabum420 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ruby -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ruby. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ruby. --Terence Ong 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. - Latinus 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Deletesque per Ruby Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
AfD? 23:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete non-notable neologism. Cedars 12:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Christianity. --Revolución (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ruby. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ruby. Ronabop 07:18, 23 January 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 Kate's Playground. This article has absolutely no content to merge, even post-AfD. --Deathphoenix 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misty Anderson
A Google search indicates that this person is the model at an adult content website with an Alexa rating over 200,000.[2] I was very tempted to speedy this but was unsure if it qualified under criteria A7 (non-notable person). --Allen3 talk 01:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - the Google search also turned up a lot more pages than her own for the same model (apparently), at least the first 50 or so. She seems to be prolific, but the article, as it is, isn't even a stub. I'm witholding my vote for a couple days, and if one of her fans can flesh it out with meaningful content, it might be worth keeping. If that doesn't happen, though... - dharmabum (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - Popular model with who? Victoria's Secret? Women's magazines? Music videos? The article doesn't say. Ruby 02:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but only if expanded suitably. Kate's Playground survived an AFD and this individual is part of that contingent of models. 23skidoo 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and immeidate expansion per 23skidoo. --Terence Ong 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - even if the site she appears on is notable, she herself is obviously not, and fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. 23skidoo's argument could be taken to call for the inclusion of, say, everyone who writes for a particular newspaper that's covered in the encyclopedia, or every member of a particular orchestra; it seems to me this is not a precident we should be setting. - squibix 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per Ruby. Kusma (討論) 18:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Kate's Playground Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Kate's Playground per JzG. --W.marsh 00:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete TestPilot 01:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Kate's Playground.--ThreeAnswers 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Could not actually wade through all the dense information here, but merge can what can be salvaged. Eusebeus 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Kate's Playground, that seems sensible. - dharmabum (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Kate's Playground, or delete. Ronabop 07:23, 23 January 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. --Deathphoenix 00:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Outpost Containment:Delta Team
NN. Vanity. No external links. Not even released yet. Drat (Talk) 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - is this a game, a movie, a tv show, a comic book, what? Ruby 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - 0 hits on Google. Probably just one person who is planning to make a movie. (or something to that effect) -- Mystman666 (Talk) 08:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. - Latinus 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete does not Google, therefore unverifiable. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. - Hillel 06:05, 26 January 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Five O'clock Dog
Delete. This article is ruthless self-promotion, of the kind that insists on inserting statements about registered trademarks, spamming editors who remove it and on blanking copyright questions when they are raised. This so-called book has no sales rank on Amazon, even though it has an ISBN, and the Copac, a union of the British Library with various UK university libraries have never heard of its ISBN [3], and nor has the Library of Congress [4]. That Amazon has an entry for it is simply because they will carry absolutely anything, whether it is vanity press or seminal text. Note also, that the website says "Stay tuned because the viral story known only as Five O’clock Dog is going Live" — plainly they are using Wikipedia to begin this. This material is vanity, promotion, unverifiable, crystal-balling and unacceptable on Wikipedia. -Splashtalk 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I stripped out the clear vanispamvertisement stuff. I checked the Google links, and came up with a bunch of links to a "branding/marketing" firm called "Global Branding." This appears to be part of an Astroturfing/viral marketing campaign and should be deleted ASAP. FCYTravis 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Deleteper Splash and FCYTravis, good job sniffing Five O Clock Dog out. Ruby 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)- Delete Appears to be using WP for marketing campaign.--FloNight 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are no copyright questions concerning Five O'clock Dog. The book is copy written and Five O'clock Dog is a protected registered trademark.
All of the "Delete" users have violated many of the conditions for deletion. They are all recomending "delete" without a legal foundation, they have not contacted the Wikipedia foundation to ask for guidance from the designated/official Wikipedia IP attorney prior to recomending deletion. This is a childrens book stub. Everything on the Five O'clock Dog website is part of the story in the book and is relevent material. Are all childrens book stubs ruthless self promotion . . ?, is an admin or editors bio on their main user page "ruthless self-promotion" as they look for a higher paying job? or ask others to check out what great acomplishments they have made in their lives, hey just check out my bio on Wikipedia (Its not ruthless self-promotion - I promise). Are all the porno links and pics on Wikipedia ruthless self-promotion? The official rules of deletion ( if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.) Did any "delete" folks follow this procedure. NO. Is there anyone else who wants to risk their Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the "delete" side without a Specific legal or factual reason for deletion. If all the "delete" folks want to invite a million people to talk about a children’s book stub, we are hereby not liable for any enticement of defamation or slander. We are also not reponsible for increased or decreased sales because of it. - The Publisher of Five O'clock Dog -20 january 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.32.71 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 21 January 2006
-
- I would recommend you visit the Wikipedia:No legal threats page. If you make legal threats, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. There have been no "repeated nominations" of this article - this is the first. There is a specific reason for deletion - the article is about a book which has not been published or sold or reviewed, and is potentially the subject of a viral marketing campaign to promote the book, a clear violation of what Wikipedia is not. FCYTravis 06:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to SPEEDY DELETE after legal threat from Mr. 5pm Dog Ruby 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll jump in here and vote 'delete and will block the above user for his legal threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per section 503 of the criminal code
// paroxysm (n)05:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom, with user's behavior not helping matters either. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. By definition, a not-yet-published book will not have 5000 sales per WP:BIO. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The book's existence does appear to be verifiable, as there was a booth listed at the National Book Expo in 2005, promoted by one Ernest Sjo - however, that's the extent of the information available on the Internet about this title. FCYTravis 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I found listed as Young Adult 200 page book? [5] Confusing since most young childrens books aren't 200 pp.--FloNight 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - 'Clearly no legal threats have been made or implied.' A statement of non liability
applied to any possible damaging comments by Wikipedia Admin and users is not a threat. Any PHD's in international intellectual property rights want to weigh in on what an actual threat is? Will the users that have claimed a legal threat was made state their Names and legal qualifications for doing so, as well as the detailed foundation of making one. Please also address your caution under the Wikipedia guidelines for making a false statement and a detailed description of your haste to block another user. 20 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.82 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 21 January 2006
- Threatening AfD voters with an application of libel and slander laws to statements made on Wikipedia is a clear legal threat. Now, I suggest that you make an argument as to why this article should be kept, or else it will most likely be deleted. FCYTravis 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 09:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and shoot the dog! Sheesh! Eddie.willers 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I want to risk my Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the delete side without a specific legal or factual reason for deletion. AndyJones 16:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, I want to risk my Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the delete side without a specific legal or factual reason for deletion. -- Dragonfiend 18:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the article itself is barely credible, but following the reaction it seems necessary to underscore the seriousness with which Wiki users take the content of this project. Of little note or worth. doktorb | words 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I love how you guys JUMP to conclusions without really reading to understand nor to proper research on the matter. Kmac1036 19:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- No research? We did more research to figure out what the article was than the article's creator did to write the article. FCYTravis 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising on Wikipedia is now protected by intellectual property rights? If I vote Delete you will 'sue me for libel and slander'? Yeah, that'll be a short case. Advertise your "book" somewhere else. User:Tokakeke 21:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete edit time and article content fits with a series of hoaxes I'm cleaning up at the moment from a sock farm including Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs). Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, even if it exists, it does not appear to be a notable book. Cedars 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete a vanity book perhaps? no verification, anyway. Ziggurat 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and vaccinate against Wikivirus. And sanction all rules-lawyering Wikimunchkins. Haikupoet 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vaporware book at best, more likely painfully non-notable. Credit to Zoe for the quick action on the WP:NLT violation. Stifle 23:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Five O’clock Dog - Five O’clock Dog Book
- Qualification Statement:
Upon further investigation we have come to realize that there is a very large amount of commercial fee based porn sites and other commercial services listed on Wikipedia. These pages inside Wikipedia were created and are maintained by Wikipedians as an advertisement that have direct links to the “pay a fee – buy some porn access or DVD’s - join here ” porn industry websites. (To many easy to find examples to list here)
- Further Qualification:
Our Position from the beginning has been:
These aforementioned web sites are selling commercial products. The Wikipedia page for them is an informational advertisement. Large numbers of the pages contain trademarks as a site designation and heading. Many digital images on the Wikipedia website contain the ® after the Trademark. (This is just one example of many - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intel-logo.svg)
We are Neutral regarding all maters related to this. We are not singling out one industry, only using the above as a typical example.
- Summary:
Wikipedians are in the process of deleting a children’s book page. (Stub) We assumed that since we did not see an 18 or over sign on the Wikipedia front page that Wikipedia is for all ages.
At last check there was 100% voting in favor of deleting the Five O’clock Dog Book stub page. (Article) (18 Wikipedians )
We feel that we have been singled out in a very discriminatory fashion. Further, we feel that deleting the Five O’clock Dog book stub is hypocritical.
The Publisher of Five O’clock Dog - Monday, January 23, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.82 (talk • contribs)
- You have got to be kidding me! Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the book comes out and shatter sales records or wins a Newbery Medal then it might need an article. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - As soon as the book is actually published by a reputable publishing house (read, not vanity press) and sells more than 5,000 copies, we will be quite happy to have an article about it, per WP:BIO. We will not put a link to purchase the book on Amazon, nor will we put "this name is a registered trademark" all over the article. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise things. FCYTravis 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per above --kingboyk 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. I very rarely vote to delete, but the publisher's comments here are simply unacceptable. I suggest they not attempt legal threats while not understanding that Wikipedia is no more obligated to carry their content than bookstores are to carry their book. Deletion is not "discriminatory", and the publisher should understand that even if Wikipedia were to be massively, unfairly discriminatory in its deletion policies, there would still be no grounds for any legal action. That said, I urge people nominating and voting on AFD to be carefully uninsulting to the subjects and authors of articles up until the point where they say things like what this publisher has said above. -- Jake 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong delete because of bad faith - the user that originally posted this article today sent me a rather long email that attacked my personal character rather than my actions as an administrator: I was the first person on Wikipedia to question this user over the content of this article. Nothing in their actions convinces me that this is nothing more than ruthless self promotion by a non-notable individual: if they were genuine I am sure their actions towards me and other users would have been much more above reproach. -- Francs2000 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I also received a very large email. It was rather non-sequitor. It seemed it was a response to what someone else had said. —Wrathchild (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's probably the same as the one I received, though mine had additions to the end that were little more than personal attacks against me as a person. I believe the person quoted may have been Jimbo, I have sent a copy of the email to him and asked him to confirm. -- Francs2000 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's probably the same as the one I received, though mine had additions to the end that were little more than personal attacks against me as a person. I believe the person quoted may have been Jimbo, I have sent a copy of the email to him and asked him to confirm. -- Francs2000
- 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. --Deathphoenix 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eszter Hargittai
Improperly (in my opinion this is apparently disputed) speedied under CSD:A7 now listed for due process ALKIVAR™
01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep recipient of the Woodrow Wilson Scholarship, Notable internet sociologist interviewed by the BBC and CNNfn. Quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, BBC News, and Wired Magazine. Mentioned in US Senate during hearings on the PROTECT Act of 2003. Considered one of the prominent experts on "the Internet and its social effects" which I believe (have to check) was the subject of her dissertation for her Princeton Ph.D in Sociology. Currently a professor at Northwestern University and Faculty Fellow of the Institute for Policy Research at that university. ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete being interviewed or quoted doesn't make one notable, getting a scholarship doesn't make one notable. Being an adjunct professor is not notable. This person is on a tenure-track, and when she gets there maybe that will be notable. Ruby 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I'd disagree: being interviewed or quoted DOES make one notable. You seem to be suggesting, Ruby, that for academics the ONLY measure of notability is tenure. I'd disagree; it's only one measure. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not to be a WikiLawyer or anything, but the guide for notability says, "Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest." This is a high bar to clear. The contributions of Eszter Hargittai seem to consist of writing a dissertation on the internet and being the media's on-call expert on internet issues. Now if she had invented the internet like Al Gore that would be a horse of a different color. Ruby 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd disagree with a reading of those guidelines that implies that professors have to clear a higher bar than non-professors. To clarify, I don't think she clears the notability bar by very much, but I think she clears it. The article in its current state is way too vanity, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete one interview does not make you notable. --Pboyd04 03:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep A fairly close call but quite a lot on Google Scholar and the media stuff just about tips the balance for me. Dlyons493 Talk 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Arbustoo 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If you check the recent history, you'll see deletions of references to other interviews. Then people come back and say there's only one interview. I think one reference is enough for an entry, but the whole procedure seems problematic to me JQ 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (originally created entry)
- Keep per ALKIVAR. --Rob 08:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 09:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable person Nortonew 14:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep and good catch by Alkivar. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. ...as per nominator? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, passes WP:BIO unless we penalize her for being a professor. Kappa 08:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:BIO; just one of the millions of unnotable academics around the globe. Untenured to boot! Eusebeus 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete appears to fail WP:BIO. I do note that some claims have been removed as without WP:CITE, but in the absence of references to support these claims, the removal was proper. I'd also note to there appear to be several pure votes in this discussion. To simply say "keep" or even "keep, notable" does not provide a testable hypothesis. Finally I've removed some links per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Those claims were removed as "vague and trivial" not as lacking citation, which at least some of them have. I have replaced them as they demonstrate that her ideas have a wide audience. Kappa 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please remember that WP:V is not negotiable. Right now the only claim that is supported is the BBC one. If these claims are correct, than provide some evidence. Why is that even an issue? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I regard university websites as reliable published sources. Kappa 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The personal pages of staff are mostly writtne by that staff member, and in this event still do not provide a link to where exactly it is that these "quotes" appeared. The fact that more time is being spent edit warring over the unsupported material rather than simply providing the evidence asked for is worrying. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think university staff are likely to lie about themselves on their personal pages, your opinion may differ. Removing credible claims without trace does not aid the purpose of determining whether users would value access to information about this person or not. Kappa 08:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Here's where I point to someone doing something constructive and sigh deeply in thanks. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The personal pages of staff are mostly writtne by that staff member, and in this event still do not provide a link to where exactly it is that these "quotes" appeared. The fact that more time is being spent edit warring over the unsupported material rather than simply providing the evidence asked for is worrying. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I regard university websites as reliable published sources. Kappa 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please remember that WP:V is not negotiable. Right now the only claim that is supported is the BBC one. If these claims are correct, than provide some evidence. Why is that even an issue? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Those claims were removed as "vague and trivial" not as lacking citation, which at least some of them have. I have replaced them as they demonstrate that her ideas have a wide audience. Kappa 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Claims of non-notability are not very convincing, and tenure would make a very bad criterion. -- Jake 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dlyons493 Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:56, 26 January 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. --Deathphoenix 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arachnophilia
Claims to be a paraphilia, and yet: 103 hits for arachnaphilia and paraphila together, no quotations. A lot of these seem to have referenced this wiki article. No hits on google scholar (the term arachnophilia by itself seems to be some kind of internet formatting program, zero hits associated with arachnophilia and paraphilia), no hits on a search of American Psychological Association article search with or without the term paraphilia, No relevant hits on lexis nexis (although one about nonsexual poems about liking spiders). The 100 google hits suggest that this is a role playing sex term that is in very low currency- how many role playing sex terms get so few hits on google? Compare with 409 hits for microphilia paraphilia together. Lotusduck 01:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Article was written entirely by 218.174.180.152 (talk · contribs), also editing as 218.167.177.106 (talk · contribs). No sources, likely hoax, definitely nn rubbish. Ashibaka tock 01:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless seriously verified. Arachnophilia is also relatively known freeware HTML editor [6]. Since WP serves almost as Freshmeat twin it may be covered. Pavel Vozenilek 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unverified -- Astrokey44|talk 09:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If this is deleted then Arachnophilia (HTML editor) should be moved to this article. No vote. JIP | Talk 13:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I wonder if I would have been out of line in making arachnophilia a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not clear if that's a sneaky deletion or utterly appropriate. Hmm. I'm the nominator
-
- The way I understand it, if there is an article titled Article title (some meaning), then the article Article title should either be a proper article about something other called "Article title" or a disambig page between various things called "Article title", and not a redirect to Article title (some meaning). Redirects the other way around are OK. JIP | Talk 16:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete like all the rest. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete likely hoax. --Fire Star 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, needs verification. incog 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. And let me know if there are any Praying-mantis-roleplay women out there, I want to avoid them. Seriously, looks pretty much like either a hoax or non-notable. Herostratus 19:57, 25 January 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, so keep. --Deathphoenix 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I LIEK MILK!!!!!!!!
- Note: This AfD page was not created by the person who nominated the Article for deletion. Thus far there is no nomination. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep: I just discovered this "i liek milk" thing tonite when I found the wikipedia page, but it seems like a legitimate (if bizarre) article. Google brings back 19,000 hits for the phrase. 15,500 if you search for "i liek milk" with "hitoshi". Songs have even been written about it [8]. People have blogged about it in more than one language [9]. It seems to have had at least some life as a pop culture/internet phenomenon. I don't think it deserves deletion, but it does need a little more fleshing out. -Bindingtheory 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete No Alexa rank for the page at all, Alexa rank goes to parent site (Generation.nl), which is near 3,000,000.[10]. Basically, the page is pictures of a guy drinking milk with a few random sentences strewn in. Comments from a couple of random bloggers don't make this anywhere near notable. Karmafist 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Non notable websites do not fit the criteria for speedy deletion CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if "unremarkable people or groups" (A7) is a speedy criterion, then "unremarkable websites" should also be, since websites are inherently much less notable and more fleeting things than people. (Of course if non-notability is contested, then it's a matter for AfD.) 131.111.8.100 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, as much as I like extracting meanings to extend applications of principles, in Wikipedia we have to watch out that things aren't deleted on a whim- otherwise who knows how far it can go. And websites are sometimes much more notable than the people who make them. More people will know Snopes than Barbara Mikkelson (who's just a redirect) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if "unremarkable people or groups" (A7) is a speedy criterion, then "unremarkable websites" should also be, since websites are inherently much less notable and more fleeting things than people. (Of course if non-notability is contested, then it's a matter for AfD.) 131.111.8.100 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Non notable websites do not fit the criteria for speedy deletion CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Grandwazir 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Some people may think it's amusing to watch Asians mangle English, but we don't need to have an encyclopedia article equivalent of a circus freak show. Ruby 02:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, the rest of the Internet can do that all by themselves. Delete. --Agamemnon2 23:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It is almost an internet legend. "Welcomed to my page!!! I leik milk!!" is blogged and commented upon ad nauseum. Seems to amuse geeks in the same way as All your base are belong to us. --Ezeu 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep. Agree with ezeu. Page is somewhat legendary, I've known about it for years. Number of google hits lead me to say keep. Phantasmo 02:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Rather sad, but notable. The number of google hits reflects this. Forbsey 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic. Ifnord 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Unfortunately notable, in the vein of goatse. freshgavin TALK 05:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Ruby. Crunch 07:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but move to something without the caps and exclamation marks that looks more formal like I liek milk (webpage) -- Astrokey44|talk 09:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As per Ezeu. I'm ashamed to admit I even had one of the t-shirts (even though I despise milk). –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Why do people insist on encyclopedia articles about their favourite Internet fads? JIP | Talk 13:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The page sounds completely stupid, but it got 19,000 hits on Google! It sounds like a legitimate internet phenomenon. (Hamster Dance was stupid too, but it has a Wiki article). Nortonew 14:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks notable to me --84.67.140.231 21:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to a list of minor Internet memes, or delete and recreate in five years if anyone can remember it then. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete since it's some short-lived fad. At least the hampster dance had a song released... -- 9cds(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. As far as I know, this thing happened something like 3 years ago. I hadn't heard about it since ... until now. freshgavin TALK 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, minor and ephemeral Internet meme. MCB 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, 3 years must be a record for an ephemeral phenomenon. Kappa 08:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge as per zis Guy. Absence of verification = unable to be updated. Ziggurat 20:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Internet memes are generally unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a speedy delete, but I like JzG's idea of recreating in five years if anyone can remember it then, i.e. delete. Stifle 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment. Correction to my above statement, the website is ALREADY 5 years old. (2001) freshgavin TALK 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep notable internet memes. I'm also trying to get some sort of idea together regarding internet memes at the Village Pump, input would be useful --badlydrawnjeff 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It is this kind of phenomenon that makes Wikipedia fun and different from Brittanica. BabuBhatt 02:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't know if we want to be that different from Britanica. As the guy said, doesn't pass the five-year test. Let people who need to know about this Google it, the'll get the info they need just as quick as coming here, because there just isn't that much to say about it. Herostratus 18:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Astrokey44. Page needs a better title, but appears to be a notable enough meme. --King of All the Franks 07:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: notable phenomenon of considerable longevity.
- 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 as hoax or nonsense --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hobo Staring Game
Hoax entry, I couldn't find anything to back it up, no references given. Grandwazir 02:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax. Hobos were too busy staring outside their boxcars looking for railroad authorites to be staring at each other. Ruby 02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. One of those that I wish were true, sounds like a riot. But alas, also sounds like a hoax. Phantasmo 02:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as patent nonsense. SycthosTalk 04:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Patent_nonsense (aeropagitica) 11:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. - Latinus 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax (not patent nonsense I think, but ICBW). Other edits by this author include Legowars, which is also a bit suspect. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Vending machine. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dispenser
Delete poorly-written dictionary definition, unsuitable for trans-wiki, but has an editing history that suggests it should not be unilaterally redirected to Vending machine without a consensus. Ruby 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Vending machine. I see no distinction at all. ×Meegs 05:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. --Terence Ong 05:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per above Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:22, 21 January 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:56, Jan. 27, 2006
[edit] Tubular Rail concept
Unverifiable and fails WP:CORP. Also an engineering nightmare, but that shouldn't sway us too much. Anyway, delete. Melchoir 03:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Concept. Article admits no models are currently being tested. Ruby 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising of Tubular Rail, Inc. SycthosTalk 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- If there was even just one press cutting to show that this was a serious contender for a real project then I would change my vote, but until then I'll have to vote delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 05:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Muchness 06:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-21 07:30Z
- Delete no third party verification outside its site -- Astrokey44|talk 11:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. - Latinus 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unverifiable and speculative. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nonnotable transport crankery. I mean, that is frikkin. Insane. I wouldn't ride the thing, and I'm glad I never heard of it up till now. Belongs on crank.net, not here. Haikupoet 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - Remember, the concept does have a site at Tubular Rail where one can actually find pictures. So, while it's in no way a near-future solution, or even a possible one, the fact that people have written about it may make it deserve its own article. The article, should, however, talk about solely as a concept (in fact, the website doesn't claim anything more). I think we should give it more thought before we delete it. It's insane, but in a cool way :)
Ronline ✉ 07:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- All a fair point, but this is pretty far down there on the list of interesting crankiness. Transport crankiness is pretty obscure to begin with, and the only notable example I can come up with is the Boston Bypass, which would have run a highway and rail link across Boston Harbor. Haikupoet 19:12, 24 January 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. --Deathphoenix 15:19, 27 January 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blackpoin
This is either a hoax or incredibly non-notable. Blackpoin gets only one hit on Google - this article. I also tried Jeeves and Yahoo. Nothing at all. I can't find any evidence that there was ever a pirate, or even a cocktail, by that name. Completely unverifiable. Delete. Kafziel 07:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: More support that this is a hoax is that the article says his ship was sunk by the HMS Dauntless in 1796; the first HMS Dauntless was launched in 1804. It also makes the insane claim that Dauntless had 120 guns, three or four times more than the most well-armed ships of that time (I'd say probably more than any ship that ever sailed). Kafziel 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- "First-rate was the designation used by the British Royal Navy for its largest ships of the line, those mounting 100 guns or more, typically on three gundecks," so I don't think you're right about the number of guns. But the article does look very much like a hoax, so I'd also say to delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The HMS Dauntless, according to the Blackpoin article, was a British frigate. 'Fraid not. It was a sloop, and in fact according to what I have read it was not even built until the turn of the 19th century. If this article is legitimate, (I doubt that...) then it should at least be corrected. I cannot find anything on the Blackpoin pirate, though, so I am thinking delete.
- Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-21 07:48Z
- Delete as hoax. search only brings up this article and wikipedia mirrors. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete {{hoax}} as per comments on HMS Dauntless above. References required to disprove this hoax notion. (aeropagitica) 11:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. For the records, ships of the line did go up to 120 guns, but a 44-gun frigate was considered powerful in the age of sail. In any case, article is not verifiable as it stands, and can be treated as a hoax. Sliggy 13:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hoax, no evidence of existence outside of Wikipedia. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, aharrr, send 'im to Davy Jones' Locker. Shiver me timbers, aharrr, etc. etc. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. Stifle 23:42, 22 January 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:35, Jan. 27, 2006
[edit] GAJ
Google has no hits,non notable, the title is very close to the first part of the authors user name so it's most likely a vanity.
- Delete as nominator.--Dakota ~ ε 08:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Whoa whoa whoa, It isn't vanity or anything of the sort. This is simply to establish GAJ's history and ecetera as it's believed on some sites to be a symbol of video gamer rights. Try the link. GAJ is very populated. And...The reason you can't find any hits on it is because it's on an invisionfree server. It is also widely talked about on GameFAQS, at least on the boards it originated in. Just give it a chance. --User: GAJ Snake 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-Right, it's just to show what GAJ is, to those who are curious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead Decoy (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 January 2006
- 113 Google hits means not notable to me. No-one is talking about it anywhere else, so why should anyone read about it here? Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all blogs, forums, and messageboard articles, unless they are extraordinarily influential like Groklaw or Slashdot. Ruby 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Google won't bring up GameFAQs posts, which is the main reason it gets so low hits. People on the gamefaqs boards talk about it alot (I've found over 40 topics about GAJ on it since last month, but gamefaqs started deleting them for being off topic) Look, it's a symbol of freedom for all peoples, and that not all boards are like gamefaqs and full of corruption and trolls. It stands for something; it has moral value to the people who know what it is. It has a STORY behind it's creation, not like syndicated boards like gamefaqs. But alot of people on GameFaqs still don't know "what a gaj is" so I'm making this page just to educate people on it. It may not be a huge, famous board, but I think alot of people could learn from it. Just give it one chance. What've you got to lose? --User: GAJ Snake 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- No. We do not "give a chance" to anyone. The rules are clear, there can exist no deliberate exceptions. Delete, sayeth the Wikipedia Inquisition, and lo, it was so. --Agamemnon2 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agamemnon2, sometimes the AfD process is traumatic to new users, this kind of rhetoric only makes it worse for them. Ruby 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- So what? I'm not a therapist. If they can't cope, they shouldn't have posted an article in the first place. --Agamemnon2 12:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 128 registered members, not on its own domain, created by member or owner (per WP:BAI. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I say keep. The site is a good one, and from what people are saying, it has a good and interesting history. It might even give them some members to help their cause, which they are trying their best to fight for. Its the case of David vs Goliath, and would you side with Goliath?220.236.118.182 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Adam Shields
- Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Stifle 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Being a stickler mod gets many people angry and does no good. It's not as if Wikipedia doesn't have room for this site. These guys seem to have a good, cause, and Snake is right: it has a personal story. I think it should stay here and perhaps be merged with the article "Jack Thompson" so as to educate Wikipedia users. -Saint Shade
- Keep. If You take into account popular web forums that don't show their posts on Google and the sort, you would have alot more than the said number of hits. Who said that everybody has to rely on Google? And besides, if this is in violation, I know of a few others that should be long gone, but are still here. Well, thats my two cents at least. ~Tim Kowalenko
- Keep. Ok. So if you guys don't like it, give a reason other than google. This article is more or less about fighting against Jack Thompson's ideals of banning video games. It nullifies the first amendment, and if you delete this, then whats the point of the bill of rights? Keep it. BTW, GAJ is barely starting out small, like every other site, so, if you had banned those articles about web-sites and other things of that sort, then you've basically eliminated a source on how to relate to todays' society.-mothman47
- keepWhat's wrong with it?
- Delete The article is sloppy, we don't need a list of everyone who posted on a message board. This article is just people from that board patting each other on the back!
- !!!KEEP! There isn't another group like this. The nit-picking because of the users' names is ridiculous. They offer a collective voice which differs from other forums. They're a great group of gamers aged 13 to 20-something, with the exception of a few older and one who is a gaming grandmother. They beg for more parental control and have always wanted to educate "soccer moms" and others who have misconceptions about violent video games. Great bunch, it would be a pity to delete this. Stop being so damn anal! ~~maluka
- M
- Keep. Let the page be fixed up a bit, let them make a full attempt. What's it going to hurt if it stays up? -Steph
- keep. They aren't hurting anything by having it up here. - IU2002
Ok, now that it's been cleaned up and the "users" section is cleared, is it really biased enough to warrant a Point of View warning? --User: GAJ Snake 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep- No harm is done haveing it... and it could be of use...
- 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 after several people verified it was a hoax. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hummingbird (TV)
More nonsense from Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - A polaroid of some guy is the best publicity photo for this alleged TV show? Ruby 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete' per nom. --Terence Ong 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax. --Muchness 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you suspect something is a hoax, please tag it as such - very important I think! Otherwise we
are knowinglyrisk giving out false information without disclaimer. --kingboyk 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC) edit --kingboyk 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- How can we be "knowingly" doing something if we only "suspect" something? Ruby 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure you 'know' what I mean, or at least 'suspect' my meaning! --kingboyk 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agree it's very important, and thanks for bringing the hoax template to my attention. I'll be sure to use it in future. --Muchness 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome, thank you. --kingboyk 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing at IMDb. Nothing at The Great Canadian Guide to the Movies & TV. Plus, as a Canadian who was in my late teens and early 20s during the suggested time frame, I'd remember it if it existed. I suppose it's remotely possible that it did exist somewhere else in the world and the Wikipedia editor wrongly characterized it as Canadian...but with no IMDb entry and no Google hits, that's extremely unlikely. Delete as hoax unless somebody can prove otherwise. Bearcat 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as probable hoax. Stifle 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as likely hoax. An inconsistency: the image of Lee Farrant (?) suggests he was Hummingbird, whereas the text states that the character was portrayed by Simon Woodroffe. Mindmatrix 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above James084 16:29, 24 January 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Glucometers
Full article already exists - Glucose meter, which as a redirect from Glucometer. —ERcheck @ 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete & Redirect - Per nomination - all information is already contained in existing article. —ERcheck @ 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Added "redirect" to my vote. —ERcheck @ 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect - You have my permission. Ruby 17:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. Not sure what Endomion menas, article author is Midgley (talk · contribs). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and recreate a redirect. Stifle 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- that's fine, I really just moved the material _out_ of Diabetes article. (so I'm not really the author of it, whoever in the history of Diabetes page added it is ) redirect away.Midgley 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:25, 26 January 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why other peace theories are wrong
This page was originally located under the title Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation). This was done largely by User:Ultramarine. User:Pmanderson inisits that this was a POV fork of Ultramarines and has edited the original DPT page to make such a sub-article uncessary. He has then mvoed the article to this title to prove a point. Basicially, it as the bastard child of an ongoing battle between two editors who refuse to compromise with each other, and who the arbitration committee failed to deal with. Delete it and let them have their petty arguments elsewhere. Robdurbar 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Move to User space I believe the page contains Ultramarine's original arguments to advocate his PoV, which is that one particular class of peace theory is cpmpletely correct, and others are simply wrong. I have so tagged it. But the article Democratic peace theory does not contain those arguments, and they may be useful as raw material for other articles on the thoeries concerned. Septentrionalis 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I do not refuse to compromise; I would if offered one. Septentrionalis 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as POV fork. It's actually a nice piece of writing, but it's irredeemably POV, and unencyclopedic.
- Delete, POV fork. Radiant_>|< 23:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a POV fork and original research. Stifle 00:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, POV. incog 18:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Move to user subpage Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:24, 26 January 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. Mushroom 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mugglecast Fan
Non-encyclopædic list of people who listen to a podcast. (aeropagitica) 19:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as complete crap -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity hoax. Tagged as nn-group. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:01, 21 January 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Rummel is always right
Another result of an ongoing edit war between User:Pmanderson and User:Ultramarine. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why other peace theories are wrong for more. Delete Robdurbar 19:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Does not belong in article space, but Move to user space. See comments at other AfD; this contains claims, which I believe false, but which do not appear elsewhere in article space. It will be useful for future editors of R. J. Rummel Septentrionalis 22:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and with reference to the other article. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN this inherent POV. Radiant_>|< 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:POINT among other things. Blatant POV. Stifle 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment please note article was originally titled Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples) and renamed by Pmanderson|Septentrionalis to give it a POV name and lead to its deletion. --Salix alba (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose its deletion, as above. But I do believe the present name descriptive of its contents. Septentrionalis 00:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, POV. incog 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Do not bother to salvage its contents; the present name is indeed descriptive of the contents. 172 11:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus) but I think some of the info in this AFD debate needs to be merged with the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hoots mon
Hoots Mon is a song by Bad Manners; on the other hand it is also a popular Scottish expression (so a redirect to Bad Manners is inappropriate). It is a minor song, so does not justify a separate article, and the claim that it is associated with a Wine Gums advert is, as far as I can tell, complete bollocks - as you would expect, given that the article's creator is Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs). Because the song is genuine, I did not simply delete it; over to you. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- It was used in the Wine Gums advert about 15 years ago ("Hoots mon, there's a moose loose aboot this hoose"). The song is, however, not notable. Take any information and put in Bad Manners, then delete. David | Talk 20:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- The song was featured in the commercial, but not the Bad Manners version. Lord Rockingham's XI sang the version that featured in the advert. And even then, I think the words were changed to "there's joose loose aboot this hoose" due to the juicy nature of the confecionary in question. Barbara Osgood
- Keep, song featured in notable advertising campaign reaching millions of listeners. Kappa 07:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I could not find a reliable source for that, and the person who inserted the claim is a prolific hoaxer. I don't doubt David's word above, but some kind of corroborative evidence would be good (I am one of the millions who supposedly heard this ad, and I'm stuffed if I can remember it). Also, even if it were, this is still a stub; merge and redirect and include in Bad Manners would make more sense, I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I could not find a reliable source for that, and the person who inserted the claim is a prolific hoaxer. I don't doubt David's word above, but some kind of corroborative evidence would be good (I am one of the millions who supposedly heard this ad, and I'm stuffed if I can remember it). Also, even if it were, this is still a stub; merge and redirect and include in Bad Manners would make more sense, I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
-
-
- Evidence here and here (if I've linked it correctly...) And with luck you can even see the actual ad here... Barbara Osgood 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment 'hoots mon' is only a 'popular Scottish expression' in the same way that 'Cor, strewth' is a popular Australian saying, or 'Ja Vol Mein Fuhrer!' is a popular German saying :: Supergolden 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well known expression, and the Lord Rockingham's XI piece is part of rock history. That's before we take into account the Bad Manners version and the advertising campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:32, 27 January 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of albums whose name is not a song on the album
Will be huge if complete, and useless. If the information is interesting to anybody, a category would work better. Delete. Kusma (討論) 20:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Muchness 21:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Punkmorten 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hopeless listcruft. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless lists like this give 23skidoo a headache. 23skidoo 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as preposterous listcruft. There was a huge run of these a few months ago, and then it died down, but I guess it's back. MCB 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Oh my word. By a quick survey of my own collection, that would be well over half of all albums ever issued. Yikes. --kingboyk 13:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I remember voting to delete the complement of this list last month. As it stands, it is a list created just for the sake of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as impossible to complete and no apparent purpose. Essexmutant 11:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete'. Would cover 50%+ of all albums. Herostratus 17:10, 25 January 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. Regarding the "don't delete" vote, see WP:WEB for guidelines, gaming websites, like others, usually need to be large or significant in some other way to be considered a valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zelda's Secret Ocarina
No evidence of meeting WP:WEB website verifiability/inclusion guidelines. --W.marsh 21:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Alexa rank 440,561. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I added some vertification? What else do you need? --HarroSIN 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Some proof that the site approaches the numbers set forth in WP:WEB, or at least some notable "accomplishments" or "controversies" that are not more suitably covered in some other articles. Take the arwing hack, for example - it's already covered in Arwing article in much better form. Do we really need a "these people did it" article? That's not right form, in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Section/footnote/externallink-worthy in some larger articles, but certainly not worthy of an article of its own - few game websites generally are. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as barely notable website. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. incog 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete, meaning if you delete this page due to it being a "gaming website", you'll have to take other entries (GameFAQs, GameSpot, GameSPY, ect...) with it (if they are also "gaming websites", like it says in their descriptions. I think you people should get your facts straight first).--HarroSIN 03:05, 26 January 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 as a POV fork. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Testimony_of_the_witnesses_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
- Delete This page is little more than a copy of a consiracy webpage that slants the Dealy Plaza eyewitness testimony towards the grassy knoll shot origin POV. It's basically propaganda Mytwocents 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete POV fork. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete But what website is it? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, POV essay, original research. MCB 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's been a dumping ground for conspiracy nonsense; better to start from scratch. Gamaliel 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, The article should be kept. - RPJ 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be a POV fork. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments from RPJ
There appear to be a large number of man hours spent developing the start of a comprehensive list of eyewitnesses. Some contributors seem to disagree with the summaries provided of the witnesses’ testimony. There certainly isn’t anything unusual about that.
What the contributor should do if he or she does not agree with the summary, is merely prepare a corrected one. Doing witness summaries are done every day. Its time consuming –but not technically beyond the ability of the average reader without paralegal training in summarizing testimony.
The answer is not to remove the work that has already been done, even if it is imperfect. Is someone suggesting that a comprehensive list of the JFK witnesses is not a good idea. With the constant stream of information coming out of the documents found under the JFK Records Act, this would be a great resource for researchers and students alike.
The references for the testimony needs supplied. This is an absolute requirement. Otherwise how can one check the summary.
__________________________________
No good reasons are given for deleting
The neutrality of this article is disputed because:
1. After the first paragraph, this article is all grassy knoll POV.
This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be some one summarized the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.
2. This article contains many errors of grammar and vocabulary mistakes, e.g., using "burrow" when "furrow" was meant.P0M 21:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Noted. Find the rest of the errors.. You can spell check by cut and paste through your computer’s spell checker. The same advice should be followed for grammatical errors.
3. Delete. It's been a dumping ground for conspiracy nonsense; better to start from scratch. Gamaliel 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be these are the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.
"Delete" This page is little more than a copy of a consiracy webpage that slants the Dealy Plaza eyewitness testimony towards the grassy knoll shot origin POV. It's basically propaganda Mytwocents 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be these are the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.
- Delete appears to be a POV fork. Stifle 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a point of view fork. The number of witnesses is huge and cannot reasonably be included in the main article. This is is perfectly acceptable:
"Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article . . . "
This rule applies even if the subject is controversial:
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."
No signs of POV forking have been established, such as repeated attempts to place information in the main article and having it repeatedly rejected by consensus. all that this article has at its core is a long list of witnesses with summaries of their statements. The rule is, just because one doen't agree with the content one shouldn't delete it but debate it and do some work on the article. Put some work at least in the explanation on why it should be deleted if not the article itself. RPJ 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Bold text
The entire article is grassy knoll based on the webpage that is linked on the main page Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
The unknown website author breaks it down this way using their own criteria:
216 Witnesses -------------------- 52 Knoll 48 Depository 5 Knoll & Depository 4 Elsewhere 37 Could Not Tell 70 Not Asked
Well OK... Here's an example from a Dallas Deputy that pretty much sums up the value of the sound of the gunshots as a means to tell where the shots came from.
- Roger Craig
- OCCUPATION :Dallas Deputy Sheriff
- LOCATION : Main & Houston
- SOURCE OF SHOTS : Could Not Tell
- NUMBER OF SHOTS : 3
- DEPOSITION: April 1, 1964. 6H263
It was hard to tell because-uh-they had an echo you know. There was actually two explosions with each one. There was the-uh-the shot and then the echo from it. So, it was hard to tell."
So...... Here is eye-witness testimony, given under oath, before the Warren Commision. I will point out in particular the statements of Howard L. Brennan and the young Amos Lee Euins. They saw Oswald shoot his rifle at the presidents limosine from the TSBD.
I'll conclude with this quote from the WCR:
The cumulative evidence of eyewitnesses, firearms and ballistic experts and medical authorities demonstrated that the shots were fired from above and behind President Kennedy and Governor Connally, more particularly, from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Mytwocents 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Mytwocents
- The web site that is being criticized by "Mytwocents' has about the same percentage split between the witnesses as do the two researchers cited in the main JFK Assassination article (roughly 50-50).
- The Warren Report was heavily criticized by the HSCA for not reviewing the medical records, did not try to make reasoned analysis of why the witnesses heard gunshots from different directions, nor even inquire into a conspiracy by two shooters. The Commission started off with the FBI conclusion there was one shooter, and the objective of the Commission was to convince the public that there was only one shooter and no conspiracy.
- It is no wonder that so very few people believe the Warren Commission's conclusions.
- The polls show only from 17% to 35% of the people believe the one shooter theory espoused by the Warren Commission.[24]
- In 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board issued this statement in footnote 17:
Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.
- Mytwocents should also realize that the fact that one shooter exists (even if known positively to be true) does not in any way preclude a second shooter.
- The official statements of well over 40 witnesses that shots came from some where else besides the Book Depository should be looked at rather than dismissing them because someone else states that he doesn't seem to know where the shots came from. Using that logic, many prosecutors would likely lose perfectly good cases. He has plenty of witnesses, but defense counsel trots out a couple of witnesses that testify "I couldn't really tell you what I saw and heard", and on that basis the defendant goes free. Does tha make any sense?
- This is the reason for assembling all of the witness statement, researcher can make up their own minds. For many years the Warren Commission kept much of its proceedings secret, and took its testimony in secret.
RPJ 01:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another good example of why witness testimony is important
- The testimony of Deputy Craig cited by "Mytwocents" provides another good example why actual witness testimony is important; and the first step towards getting testimony all sorted out and analyzed is getting it summarized. This is an invaluable help. One should never stop at summary but it is a great place to start.
Deputy Roger Craig gave these statements:
On Nov 22, 1963 Roger Craig. was a Deputy Sheriff near the scene of the assassination . He was up looking for evidence near the railroad tracks right after the shooting. He talked to witnesses that saw two men together up on the sixth floor of the Book depository before the shooting and one had a rifle with a scope on it.
Then he was across the street from the grassy knoll about 15 minutes after the shooting and said “ I saw a light-colored station wagon, driving real slow, coming west on Elm Street from Houston. . . . And the driver was leaning to his right looking up the hill at [a] man running down.”
He said in a written statement the man was running “from the direction of the book depository, and jump into [the] station wagon driven by another man that drove away quickly.”
Deputy Craig testified: “I kept thinking about this subject that had run and got in the car. So, I called Captain Fritz' office and talked to one of his officers and--uh--told him what I had saw and give him a description of the man, asked him how it fit the man they had picked up as a suspect [Oswald]. And--uh--it was then they asked me to come up and look at him at Captain Fritz' office.”
Then Deputy Craig said in a written statement, that “later that afternoon I went to the City Hall and identified the suspect they had in custody as being the same person I saw running down this hill and get into the station wagon and leave the scene.” Then, while Deputy Craig was there identifying the man, Captain Fritz then asked "What about this station wagon?" and the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
Captain Fritz then said “All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene."
And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did.. Everybody will know who I am now."
Now for those who have read about Oswald know that Mrs. Paine is the very woman that Oswald’s wife was living with, and in whose garage Oswald allegedly stored his rifle.
This information seems to have collided with a favorite theory of the Warren Commission that Oswald made his get-away after assassinating the president by taking a bus and have some evidence they claim to have rounded up to thatt effect. The Warren Commission did not want to find an accomplice. So they tried to shake the deputy’s story which seems to be a useful tactic “Have you discussed with Sheriff Decker the fact that when Oswald was picked up they found a bus transfer in his pocket? Mr. CRAIG - No; I knew--uh nothing about a bus transfer.”
Then he is asked again if he was sure of his identification and tried to shake him again but again the deputy stuck to his story.
Mr. BELIN - Do you feel, in your own mind, that the man you saw at Captain Fritz's office was the same man that you saw running towards the station wagon? Mr. CRAIG - Yes, I feel like it was. Mr. BELIN - Do you feel that you might have been influenced by the fact that you knew he was the suspect---subconsciously, or do you---- Mr. CRAIG - Well, it's---it's possible, but I still feel strongly that it was the same person.
Now, at this point the reader must remember that the Warren Commission didn’t want any accomplice picking up Oswald when he was making a run for it. J. Edgar Hoover is on record wanting to convince the public that Oswald did this alone, and the Warren Commission’s objective was convince the public that there was no conspiracy. Hoover and a deputy attorney general drafted amemo to form the commission and said "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large." It is still a mystery why this should have been an objective.
- Conclusion
This is why the testimony of all the witnesses should be available, indexed, summarized and otherwise made available to the public to historians, and importantly to criminal prosecutors. There may be murderers still running around that need to be arrested, tried and convicted of killing the president. There is no statute of limitations on murder.
RPJ 05:26, 25 January 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unsolved English murders
Nothing useful links to it; bad taste lmno 22:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I think this is interesting, it's an encyclopedic subject, and the fact that an article is an orphan is a daft reason to delete. -- Francs2000 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as daft list. Stifle 01:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per stifle -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Is this more a problem with the entries or the article itself? There must be major cases of murders (besides Jack the Ripper) which remain unresolved and are notable to be listed here?--Huaiwei 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Huaiwei. --Terence Ong 15:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think a national approach to this is especially useful. In any case, merely missing people shouldn't be presumed to be murdered. Morwen - Talk 15:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- While I am ok with listings by country, I agree that the lists of missing children isnt exactly appiopriate for this list. That said, it shouldnt become a reason for its deletion, but a motivation to revamp and improve on it.--Huaiwei 15:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. At first I thought of voting to rename to List of unsolved... but this article actually has merit for the future. That's call for a cleanup tag not AfD. Ifnord 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Francis Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:14, 26 January 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lauren Allen
Probable hoax - "Deborah Dare" does not Google, and you don't need me to tell you how likely that is for an "adult film actress". Much of th text including picture upload by Deborahdare (talk · contribs) - looks a lot like the serial Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs) hoaxes I'm cleaning up right now. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a hoax to promote a porn site. Searching Lauren Allen's alias (two by two), results in a handful of websites, of which all except a defunct geocities page are mirrors of wikipedia. This article claims she has a IMDb page. The Lauren Allen on IMDb is a different person judging by the films she has participated in, and there is no date of birth noted there, as this article claims. If this is not a hoax, and there is a porn actress callled Lauren Allen, then she is not notable. --Ezeu 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising. I suspect the subject exists (or existed) as mentioned in the article, but the article has something to do with promoting material that is alleged to have been sealed by a court but later made available. A web page purporting to explain all this can be found here. MCB 05:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, hoax. Ifnord 02:51, 25 January 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.
