Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] January 5
- 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 Babajobu 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Economy of Scotland
Delete. This article is nothing more than copy-paste from Scotland article. Luka Jačov 12:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This looks like a valid split from the main Scotland article. Looks like this will develop into a complete article of it's own (and probably the economy section in the main Scotland article will need to be shortened). Unless I'm wrong in how article slits are done... --Petros471 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Better than no "Economy of Scotland". --Kilo-Lima 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The Scotland article was getting far too big and desperately needs splitting. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs
19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC) - Keep, this happens all the time. Gazpacho 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per others above. Yeltensic42.618 23:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: there is potential to mature over a period of time. --Bhadani 06:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above. --Terence Ong Talk 08:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, splitting is needed when another article gets to be too long. — TheKMantalk 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article was created as part of the on-going effort to get the main Scotland article up to Featured status. It was a Requested article at the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. This is an extensive and complex topic, and as a very new article it is not bad: there is tons of scope for this to become a truly excellent article. Economic history of Scotland will likely be a necessary spin-off in the foreseeable future, if anyone is feeling keen :)--Mais oui! 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- I can't believe this article was nominated for deletion! Astrotrain 22:02, 10 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 speedied as copyright material.--File Éireann 00:50, 5 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 Babajobu 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Network Anatomy (disambiguation)
This page, like NetworkAnatomy itself, violates WP:VAIN, created by NetworkAnatomy (talk · contribs) whose edit summaries identifies her as a "company staff member" of the company in question. Beyond that, though, this isn't a disambiguation page for different articles that might be confused with each other, it's a list of different "meanings" for variations on "network" and "anatomy" with external links. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetworkAnatomy
- Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 02:33Z
- Delete per nom. -- WB 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanispamcruftisement, as nominated. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
AfD? 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete.It isn't a disambiguation page and it is confusing.--Dakota ~ ε 22:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 08:28, 6 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. — JIP | Talk 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Girl gamer
- Delete, maybe merge Having this as a separate article from gamers is pretty much just sexism. 67.184.38.183 (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why "girl gamer" needs its own article. Delete it and maybe put a paragraph about girls in gaming culture in another article. Scottmso 00:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Phenomenon in male-dominated gaming world. Needs references though. -- JJay 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, maybe merge. This article is little more than a drawn out, pretentiously written dicdef, mixed with some original research. The subject merits a mention in a gaming culture article, but I don't think there's anything here worth using. Actually, I think most of the articles about gaming culture could use an overhaul/rewrite, since they suffer from unsourced original research and social commentary. See Video game player, hardcore gamer, Indie gaming and others. Night Gyr 01:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
weakkeep Sure, why not? Youngamerican 04:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)- comment: I'm switching to plain old, regular keep, since the term/trend seems quite common now, moreso than your run-of-the-mill neologism. Youngamerican 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I could see how this could expand, but current state looks rather funny. -- WB 06:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with nominator.--Dakota ~ ε 07:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- At best Merge, but even making it good enough for a subsection of another article will take some editing. A.J.A. 07:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep/Expand, I think the title itself sounds funny and encourages people to think it is a pointless article, using the word "female" instead of "girl" will warrant a more serious look at the implications of the subject. I also think that there could be psychological issues to be looked at which could be very helpful to people. We should expand the article with a bit more of a scientific and factual meaning behind the idea; and then link to it from the main video game articles. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per JJay — J3ff 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep 40k google and some references have been added -- Astrokey44|talk 10:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as sufficiently obvious as not to require definition. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, well-known referenced phenomenon. I would love the phrasing to be to the point at the start, though. - Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I've seem this phrase being used in few differnet places and can perhaps see why people might want to look up what it is all about and why it is used.Evil Eye 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, though I hate the term. RasputinAXP talk contribs 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Kep and expand, particularly with reference to games other than video games. Stifle 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Wow, girls who play games?! I'd say delete, but the info about these women becoming minor celebs is quite interesting. --kingboyk 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, are we going to seperate male and female masseuses now? The article offers no actual information, is heavily POV (males' general societal awkwardness, inherent sexual attraction, etcetera), and only aggravates furthering stereotypes. As a gamer, I sure as feck don't care if you have a penis or a vagina, and there's definitely no "inherent sexual attraction" to you Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. The subject of female gamers is a hot subject of study at the moment, in a field that is perceived as being men-only. At a time when gaming is transgressing gender borders, this is a particularly relevant subject. Perhaps move to Women in video gaming. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete arbitrary topic that hardly warrants encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep although I recommend changing the title to something of a more encyclopedic tone. The article is sourced and represents a social phenomenon that is the subject of news reports and sociology studies. As a female gamer and contributor to Wikipedia's gaming articles I consider this topic overdue. Durova 20:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and move to a more professional title like Women in video gaming. Having the title be "girl gamer" is like Culture of the United States being under the title Yank culture. --Bletch 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Why not talk about male nurses, then or, commando girls. It's just unecessary to have an article of it's own. Make it maybe a reference in the gaming article. Ricardo Silva 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and de-POVize. Yeltensic42.618 23:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If there are gender issues with an activity, cover that in the relevant article, such as gamer. We shouldn't create these specialized little articles, until the main article is overgrown. --Rob 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and move, as per Bletch's comments above. Coll7 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ajdz 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Bletch. --Terence Ong Talk 08:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- Rob 00:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Thought this was going to be a case of good subject, bad article looking at the current votes, but there's nothing glaringly POV or unverified here. Needs improvement, but not the end of the world if it doesn't get it. --Last Malthusian 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- delete Unless there's separate definitions for girl auto mechanics, girl television announcers, or boy ballet dancers. I don't see why a separation. The girl gamers should be included in the "gamer" entry as well as any other gaming genre- older gamers, boy gamers. ets. Steppen53 1/06/06—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.2.56 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep although I'd rather see it merged, better to still have it and a consensus... Makenji-san 00:34, 11 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 Babajobu 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Akeni
Nn software company. No media coverage. No incoming wikilinks. Official URL has 300K alexa rank -- Perfecto 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 02:31Z
- Delete per nom. -- WB 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Evil Eye 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 08:29, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tinfoil Hat Linux
The Linux distribution which this article describes is apparently completely defunct and receives no mention within the last several years (as returned by a Google search). This article serves no purpose and should be deleted. Ryan Reich 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There may be many people either using this product or interested in its history. Please provide better arguments for deletion than apparently defunct. -- JJay 01:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 02:22Z
- Keep/Cleanup The article is useful but should be cleaned up a bit. Schlockading 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep - this Linux distro doesn't seem to have all that much impact, but it does have some Google presence outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Just being defunct is not a criteria for deletion. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is not just another "my first Linux distro." It had some interesting toys. Gazpacho 07:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, I'm pretty sure I found out about TFHL from this article, so it's not worthless. Gazpacho 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per maru.ArgentiumOutlaw 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no claim to notability, no impact on any type of computing or society. -- Kjkolb 08:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Only a little over 500 non-Wikipedia Google hits - that's very low for a Linux distribution or anything computer-related. Blackcats 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per JJay. -- jaredwf 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Deletesince I am unable to verify whether this is a hoax or not. A sample of the 600-odd Google hits give me (a) Wiki mirrors or (b) a single "announcement" posting which may or may not have been a joke. The "official site" has gone, I found no evidence that this really exists or existed. I can't find a Sourceforge project, I can't find a download site with the disk image. If anyone can demonstrate to me that this is not a joke or hoax, I will happily consider changing my vote. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: The official site can be accessed through the Wayback Machine [1] -- jaredwf 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's definitely no hoax: I've used it. Now you can say you know somebody who has. :) ...I probably still have an .iso laying around somewhere... Turnstep 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This is part of computing history and its ideas are important. Wikipedia is not just a catalog of currently available systems, it's comprehensive coverage of technology is one of its strengths. --agr 16:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Notability is too little. --Kilo-Lima 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - If this distro was ever publically released it's a clear keep IMHO. But, as a long term Linux user (well over 10 years) I can't say I've ever heard of it. The WayBack machine link doesn't fill me with confidence, could easily be a 'vapourware' page. --kingboyk 17:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was able to follow the external link from the article and download the gzip'ed version of release 1.000 (but not the .img version, which appears first). It unzipped fine, but I haven't tried it on a system. It seems real enough. --agr 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well in that case I'd have to agree with user Jamyskis and say weak keep. Thanks agr. --kingboyk 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was able to follow the external link from the article and download the gzip'ed version of release 1.000 (but not the .img version, which appears first). It unzipped fine, but I haven't tried it on a system. It seems real enough. --agr 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. To be fair, with so many distros floating around, very few Linux users, experienced or not, will know of all of them. I've been a user of Linux for four years and haven't heard of it. Many are just clones of existing distros. The notability of this distro is questionable, but if it holds true to its security credentials, then I think this would just about pass. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I am willing to accept that this distro is instructive regarding secure-computing techniques. Not to mention that there is such a proliferation of pages on minor Linux distributions (some possibly defunct as well) that it is unfair to single out this one. However, the article needs a lot of attention: it is haphazard in its choices of what or what not to include and contains about as much opinion as fact. I think that the article, as it stands, is not worth having; therefore if we will keep it, we should rewrite it. Ryan Reich 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I made a pass at it earlier today. Let me know if anything else needs changing. --agr 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I will post my suggestions on the article's talk page since there is no need to clutter up this page, which is for a more direct discussion of whether the article should go or not. Ryan Reich 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Terence Ong Talk 08:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - agr has really improved the page and I think it's now a useful enough source of information that it should stay. Ryan Reich 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - THL generated a fair amount of discussion when announced even if few people went to the trouble of actually using it. It's of historical interest even if now defunct. It's of cultural interest even if it's a hoax and never really existed (of course its existence or nonexistence should be verified for the article). Phr 08:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Genuine distribution, has established notability. Turnstep 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep dsws 02:19, 11 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 to Rainbow Warrior. -Splashtalk 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peter wilcox
Attempted assertion of notability, but, while the Rainbow Warrior story itself is certainly important, not every single character in it was. Delete. Soo 01:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why not verify, merge and redirect to Rainbow Warrior?.
- Agree with previous poster, anyone looking for peter wilcox should be redirected to rainbow warrior article to find appropriate info. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I (for once) dont feel particularly strongly about this one, but it would be nice to see the article expanded. For example was this guy a high ranking member of Greenpeace? Had he any previous press exposure? That sorta thing. At the moment I vote weak keep just to see whether any improvements happen with the article. Jcuk 08:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rename (capitalize last name), 'merge and redirect unless expanded in AFD period. - Mgm|(talk) 13:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Rainbow Warrior. Evil Eye 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
merge and redirect to Rainbow Warrior. -- Dragonfiend 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Rainbow Warrior. --Kilo-Lima 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Move to Peter Wilcox and expand. As the captain of the famed Rainbow Warrior there is surely enough material on this guy to form a whole article. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:28, 5 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 Babajobu 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aisle
Why does 'aisle' deserve an encyclopedia entry? The material about church architecture might be moved to an article on that. RickReinckens 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
DELETE Should be in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Phaldo 03:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki and Cleanup - put in Wiktionary under "aisle." Schlockading 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete already in wiktionary Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki -- WB 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep/Expand, the way it is now, it looks like it should be a wiktionary entry, but when it is expanded I see a lot of potential for valid and useful Art History and Architectural article. ArgentiumOutlaw 08:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Above. But it needs a heckufa lot of work.... Jcuk 08:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete.I was going to vote a provisional "keep" to allow time for the article to be re-written and expanded, but I see that it's been here on Wikipedia for two and a half years already and it's still just a dicdef. If anyone feels strongly enough about keeping this they can work to expand it substantially (adding about history, significance, etc.) in the next few days and then message me and I'll change my vote. Blackcats 10:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)- Strong Keep - I'm changing my vote, as this AFD has apparently motivated Jonathan de Boyne Pollard and some others to drasticly expand and improve this article such that it is now clearly encyclopedic and way more than a dicdef or anything suitable for Wiktionary. Way to go guys! Should be an obvious keep for everyone now. Blackcats
- Transwiki. This article should be copied and/or moved to Wiktionary. -- Eddie 11:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Deletedictdef, already on Wiktionary. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary and then merge with Church. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Becuase we do need it. --Kilo-Lima 17:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete since it's already on Wikitionary. Durova 20:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
KEEP -- I AM THE ONE WHO NOMINATED THIS. Before doing so I looked up "chair", for comparison. After nomination, someone added quite a bit. Although it is still fairly weak and needs additional reformatting work, my attitude is that the threshold for inclusion should be fairly low and I think it now at least comes up to the level of a legitimate stub.
I agree with ArgentiumOutlaw that this now should be expanded regarding things like Art History and Architecture. What are the oldest known examples of aisles? It should be mentioned that aisles often have signs designating the contents. Are the spaces between shelves in a library sometimes referred to as aisles? In dark places such as movie theaters, the edges of aisles are sometimes marked with rows of small lights. Etc. The wiktionary entry does not address any of those topics, nor should it. Those are proper topics for an encyclopedia article.
- RickReinckens 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP When I originally nominated this it contained three sentences and two images of churches. At that point I was not willing to "adopt" it to fix it. Since Jonathan de Boyne Pollard expanded it I have adopted it. Basically, the entire article has been written after it was nominated for not having enough information to be in an encyclopedia.
- RickReinckens 23:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Both the 1911 britannica and the catholic encyclopedia had articles on "Aisle".--Samuel J. Howard 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If we needed a reason, Samuel J. Howard provided it. Cleanup and expand as necessary. Vegaswikian 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per rewrite since Afd nomination. -- JLaTondre 18:30, 7 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, although I can testify to the danger of using multi-tabbed browsing when using Wikipedia. Joining those who got a good laugh from reading it, so it's to BJAODN this thing goes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikinaut
neogolism — J3ff 03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's see: made up term, neologism, newly coined, self-reference. Yep, that's deleteable. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Added to BJAODN, so make sure it's D. Daniel Case 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe abakharev 04:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN or Merge with "Wikipedian" article Schlockading 05:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe. -- WB 07:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 07:24Z
- Delete, why not just add every possible portmanteau of wikipedia and a word that means person. eg 'wikiguy' or 'wikineer' or even 'wikijanitor'. ArgentiumOutlaw 08:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination.
- BJAODN This is very funny, I particularly like the advice against using tabbed browsing. Zunaid 08:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- BJAODN it, per Zunaid. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe -- Dragonfiend 16:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikidelete or BJAODN Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:20, 5 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. — JIP | Talk 08:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hilary Duff Chart History
OK, when this article started, I put a "mergeto" header on it, but now, this is getting out of hand. We're supposed to have an article on every single and every album she has ever released, for every chart in the world? To begin with, there is not a single cite for any of this information. For another, this violates WP:NOT, as it's a collection of unencylopedic information. Imagine if we did this for every music group that has ever existed. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good encyclopedic information on this important star, but a merge would be OK if the Duff article is not too long. Of course, I favour keeping The Beatles record sales, worldwide charts along with other articles of this type. Don't think we should do it for every group, just the ones with widescale chart success. -- JJay 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- ...in other words, every group whose fans are editing WP. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea who edits these articles. Am I a fan of any of the articles I edit? What a strange concept. But I guess, if Duff, or Beatles or Bach fans want to contribute, there's probably no harm in it. As long as the result adheres to the project goals, like in this case. -- JJay 05:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- ...in other words, every group whose fans are editing WP. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. It says "Redio"... Anyways. -- WB 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 08:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete based on what Zoe said. --Rob 09:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Move to Hilary Duff discography and cleanup, infusing any relevant content from the main article. -- Grev 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge per above. Blackcats 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- This would go majorly out of control if we mentioned all motable charts her songs were in... I'm on the fence on this.. -Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unencyclopedic chartcruft. Zunaid 12:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Move to Hilary Duff discography and add any relevent info from Hilary Duff, as per Grev. Evil Eye 13:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Zoe is right. Eusebeus 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe. I was going to vote merge, but the more I read Zoe's nom the more it convinced me. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, good lord. Delete. Note: it appears to have been moved to Hilary Duff Discography Info, where it's equally crufty. --Calton | Talk 00:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Jjay. It's very encyclopediec. Plus the page is going to be too long at the end of editing. It does not say "Redio" either. It's new Calton it will be edited better. So now is not a good time to determine. Give it a few weeks it'll look much better. Trust me. Oh yeah, Zoe this artist has had so much chart history she needs this page. Unlike some others. If every group had a page like this it would be scary. How about if the artist has 4 albums they can finally have their own chart page. If they have over 20 charts.Tcatron565
- Delete unnecessary detail MattHucke(t) 18:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --NaconKantari 23:35, 8 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. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CeaSe (rapper)
Could not find on Google. As text indicates, this guy is going to be the next big thing. Maybe, but he has to do that first then he gets a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, wikipedia isn't a blog. Incognito 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. Movementarian 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, non-notable musical group. Can't find on Google; not on AllMusic. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 08:58Z
- Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- Dragonfiend 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delte - Fails WP:MUSIC. --Kilo-Lima 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete next big thing = current no thing. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, This is a vanity article. Ajwebb 21:58, 5 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. — JIP | Talk 08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sugar Pond
Been here since August. Non-notable barely begins to describe it. Denni ☯ 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for significant information Schlockading 05:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, this is highly insignificant. eg..."There is a little shack by the pond" ...... ArgentiumOutlaw 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is funny! (Or maybe I'm just sleep deprived and slap-happy) Delete. Only really note worth ponds like Walden Pond should have their own articles, and actually that's large enough to be considered a small lake. Blackcats 11:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sugar Pond offers ice skating during the winter when the temperature is cold enough. A red/green indicator by the pond and at the Recreation Department downtown says whether the ice is safe to skate on. There is a little shack by the pond, but it is rarely open. Delete, text book example of unencyclopedic information. Any pond can be skated on if it's cold enough, so that's totally irrelevant. I'm pretty sure more ponds have such a light and the shack has nothing to do with the pond. Once all that is removed, you're left with CSD A1 material. - Mgm|(talk) 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Gary Kirk (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Zunaid 14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd weakest keep ever. I give geographic features the benefit of the notability doubt, but this almost stretches it. Youngamerican 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: to the closing admin, If keep is not an option, I transfer my vote to merge. Youngamerican 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Notability is too little. --Kilo-Lima 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to town article. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:22, 5 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. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Racial Myths
Does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:WEB. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. When an article about a website has, very early on, a long listing of contributors id'ed only by nick, you don't even need to check WP:WEB. Daniel Case 04:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. tregoweth 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable web forum. No Alexa rank for http://racialreality.shorturl.com/ (only for shorturl.com). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 09:02Z
- Delete, as above. Evil Eye 13:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh hell, go ahead and delete it, then! -- Gerkinstock 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Errrr.... no reason to get upset, if I vote keep will that make you a little happier? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Quarl Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. I'm not upset, I'm actually surprised this page has lasted this long...:) -- Gerkinstock 23:12, 5 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. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hertz Football League
Someday maybe we will have notability standards for fantasy sports leagues. However, there isn't even a category for them now, which leads me to believe there are no other articles and thus they aren't considered notable per se. Daniel Case 04:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the HFL can set the bar and create notability for valiant fantasy sports leagues which have years of experience. This article isn't even 1/20 finished, as there is a lot of history of its hosts, Yahoo Fantasy Sports and ESPN.com Fantasy Sports which have yet to be covered in the article. I sincerely hope HFL will be given the opportunity to showcase its league and its hosts to the rest of the fantasy sports world.
- Well said, but really, we haven't even gotten our act together as far as corporations are concerned. Fantasy sports leagues are not exactly high on the list (And do sign your comments with the four tildes, please). Daniel Case 05:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverified and original research. Movementarian 04:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Movementarian -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 06:58Z
- 'Delete, nn. RasputinAXP talk contribs 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete close to a joke, certainly not an encyclopaedia candidate Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:45, 5 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. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Half-Life 177
This is yet another mod under development for Half-Life 2. I don't think it has achieved sufficient notability to warrant being included on Wikipedia as its own encyclopedia article. It is already listed under List of Half-Life 2 mods. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: still under dev, so not notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 06:57Z
- Delete. Private games need to be released at the very least before they can start becoming independantly verifiable and notable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MgM, as ever. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, If it's a mod for Half Life then merge it! Empty2005 13:02, 7 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 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Japonica Partners
Advert/Vanity - Rudykog 19:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- keep This seems to be a case where a crappy wikipedia entry is hiding a company of some notability. Most of the text seems to come from Armenepedia, and indicates a heavyweight financial organization. having said that, I could happily change my vote to delete If the entry remains as useless as it is now for any length of time.MNewnham 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! {{{1}}}
- Rewrite This page is nothing short of corporate advertising, as currently presented. It needs to be rewritten to demonstrate the company's notable status in order to justify its retention as an article for research. -- (aeropagitica) 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rewrite if the company is of some value; otherwise speedy as advertising.--Mitsukai 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if not rewritten by close of AfD. If it's important, someone will be along with a better article any day now. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:19, 5 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 redirects are cheap, no valid reason to delete given. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] McClatchy Interactive
Delete, since the mention of this subdivision in The McClatchy Company seems more than enough. As it stands, the subdivision page is both of substub quality, and borders on vanity (if you consider it on its own and not as a subdivision) to my taste. BACbKA 14:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superfluous, per above Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to The McClatchy Company. Doesn't need it's own article, but should be redirected not deleted as it will discourage recreation and allow people to find parent company when looking by this name. -- JLaTondre 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- When searching by name, the article will show up anyway. There will not be a flood of hits btw ;-) As for the recreation, an ignorant user will still be able come up with a creative spelling you miss anyway, w/o researching about the parent article (capitalisation variations, Company vs Co., or smth else...) --BACbKA 15:28, 8 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. Stifle 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alloparenting
it has been already transwikied to Wiktionary, it's no longer necessary to have this page on wikipedia Melaen 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep; Jonathan de Boyne Pollard rewrote it into an encyclopedia article instead of just a dictdef. —Cryptic (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as it has been significantly expanded. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep has the potential to be expanded in to a proper article for research, rather than the definition of the term as is present at the moment. -- (aeropagitica) 07:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite. Punkmorten 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as currently written Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite. Ajwebb 21:59, 5 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. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jeph pawn
- Keep I have heard of Jeph Pawn, I have The Second Album, so does an exchange student from Osaka, Japan, at my homestay. Ivan Pineda and Anthony Blinoff are still fairly well known in Sydney so I would not dismiss this entry. -DC_Johanson.
Band history totally unverifiable, a hoax MNewnham 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable. If we get sources and references I could be convinced to change. Stifle 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Stifle -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable band, no hits on allmusic.com. This information needs to have its sources cited for a start, as the text of the article is not suitable for research. This would be more appropriate on a tribute website than on WP. -- (aeropagitica) 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable. And if their album "achieved success" in the US, why has Amazon not heard of it? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as functionally unverifiable. Not found on the usual suspects. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable (as above). Ajwebb 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I have The Second Album, so its obviously not all just smoke. -KelvinDougherty
- 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. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Giblet soup
it is already on wikibooks, I see no point in having it here Melaen 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Melaen. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, nothing to transwiki, delete. Stifle 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not encyclopedic, already in wikibooks, delete 4hodmt 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Stifle -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per stifle, and in line with precedent, since it's apparently already been transwikid to the right project. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Already transwikied. Youngamerican 20:36, 10 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. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] N5 (notation)
Delete. Again. It's another fictional notation for RDF language. See N4 deletion process. — Anrie Nord 21:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Anrie Nord. Stifle 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete again. unverifiable, original research. If the author creates N6 I hope it can be speedied. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 06:47Z
- Delete again per above. — Anrie Nord 09:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:17, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ITunes Music Store Protocol
not encyclopedic Melaen 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to iTunes Music Store. Doesn't seem to deserve its own article. Stifle 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with article on iTMS. This is a useful tidbit of information. Maybe merge to an article on the technical aspects of iTMS? Cyde Weys votetalk 14:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge seems the right thing to do. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. Gazpacho 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect (or is it just Merge? Can't remember). The reason is that an article could be written about the protocol in question but there isn't enough there now. Haikupoet 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: "Merge" implies redirect also, as merging without a redirect violates the GFDL. Stifle 14:40, 7 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. The only relevant "keep" votes are from User:Robert Paveza and User:Shadypalm88. Most of the "keep" votes are sock puppeting by anonymous IPs, one of whom even replaced the AfD nomination statement with his own explanation why the article should be kept. — JIP | Talk 11:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Valhalla legends
Valhalla Legends is a highly technical and extremely popular online community, mainly focused on computer science and programming. The members of the innermost part of the community, the actual vL clan, are responsible for reverse-engineering the BNCS (Battle Net Chat Server) protocol, maintaining BNLS (Battle Net Logon Server, which is used by thousands of battle.net bot developers), and creating, as well as revising, documentation on these two servers' protocols.
- Keep 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC) KEEP - This community is a great source for information related to computer science, programming, and client emulation. The goal of wikipedia is to provide people with accurate, free information. Seeing how this community is a great source of information, as it accomplished so much and provides service to so many, deleting their wiki would only be contradicting wikipedia's goal.
- Delete per above. DreamGuy 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per above as well as the overall strangeness of the subject mentioned in the article 24.0.161.209 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per DreamGuy FreplySpang (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable online gaming group. I wish for expansion of WP:CSD so that this kind of article could be speedy-deleted when no notability is asserted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 06:33Z
- Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}. CSD A7 does allow NN "groups of people" to be speedied, including bands, clubs, etc... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I tagged an article about a web forum once as nn-club and an admin disputed it... so now I'm just conservative and say "wish it qualifies for speedy delete" instead of "speedy delete". I would like A7 to say something like "This includes online gaming groups, web forums, mailing lists, ..." —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 23:05Z
- Delete Yet another frag-fest clan. -- (aeropagitica) 07:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is what I stated on the Discussion page:
- Well, the article was around and was a stub. I recently expounded and added actual and accurate information to it, and all of a sudden it's listed under "Articles for Speedy Deletion." The group has had over 1700 members in the latest iteration of its message boards (which is I believe the third iteration). Its services have provided for tens of thousands of people (see BNLS, which I haven't checked to see if that's been marked too), if not hundreds of thousands, when one considers the wide distribution of Blizzard Entertainment's vastly distributed software. If this needs to be included in the article, then fine -- but I don't think that the article should be deleted.
- Robert Paveza 07:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
- The members of Valhalla Legends are known as pioneers in developing gaming software, in a community that exceeds 500,000 users; further, they actively host a very well known support forum for their products, which has sub-forums to support those learning C++, C, VB, Java, and many other programming languages.
- It is something that many will be interested in reading more about, and looking up, so is certainly a positive addition to Wikipedia and should be kept.
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.169.234 (talk • contribs)
- Weak keep forum has 1700 users, so it is notable. --Oscarthecat 08:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge some info with BNLS. Scoo 10:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Although this is something I have given consideration to, it seems that this topic merge would also be inappropriate; BNLS is a user authentication system, and while Valhalla Legends is very much tied to this system, it is hardly their single accomplishment. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Battle.net. Blackcats 11:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- That would be inappropriate. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- comment 2000+ members is pretty common for forums.Geni 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This just doesn't meet notability requirements. Cyde Weys votetalk 14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT a free webhost. That's what your own webpage is for. RasputinAXP talk contribs 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah that's special, of course, there is a web page. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no merge. Nothing verifiable here. I'd probably have speedied this. Friday (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have verified with one of the members who created BNLS that, although he doesn't have unique connection statistics, the BNLS server was around a year or two ago regularly receiving over 350,000 connections per day. 2,000 forum members might not be many, but that is quite a few connections. Robert Paveza 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete gamecruft. Functionally unverifiable, and what is verifiable is trivial and unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Typical gamercruft. Not-notable to boot. Dan 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Battle.net#Community. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ajdz 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Krash 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there is going to be an agreement to speedy delete as nn-club, which I would like to see done, but I'll settle for a strong delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Stifle 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Perhaps merge into Battle.net as the prevailing opinion seems to be for deletion Harrym 10:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Extremely notable and influential within niche community and also offers highly-used resources. All comments regarding "gamercruft" are ill-informed; Valhalla Legends is not primarily a gaming clan. Also refer to Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; Valhalla Legends' niche status does not not alone preclude it having an article. WP:NOT webhost is also a weak argument; they have their own site already and the article is not being used as a true web site. --Shadypalm88 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Achievments appear at least somewhat noticeable within niche, see no reason for deletion.
-
- Comment: No matter what the outcome is, could you please state it at requested moves? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 09:12, 10 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. Mindmatrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plazoo
Some random website's shameless self-promotion. Yes, I realize it has 500,000 Google hits; however, once you get past about the third page, it is just ad-riddled pages with titles dealing with casinos and Russian underage porn. Hosterweis 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. not notable, vanity. Incognito 06:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Also, http://www.plazoo.com/en/top.htm might be interesting to look at. --Timecop 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as spamcruft Cyde Weys votetalk 07:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - pagerank inflating spam - Femmina 07:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per Femmina --Depakote 11:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Proto t c 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Spam. --kingboyk 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Tapir
- Delete Jmax- 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Eusebeus 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is spamcruftisement. Almost to the vani- level. Dan 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam site. Ashibaka tock 23:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. WhiteNight T | @ | C 11:13, 10 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. — JIP | Talk 11:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Unalienable Right
Blogger self-promotion (the kind of thing Wikipedia could use less of); 124k Google hits, with about five that actually relate to aforementioned blog (Google test doesn't work here; the words are kind of in the Constitution Declaration of Independence) Hosterweis 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, blogcruft. Incognito 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Another useless political blog spamvertisement. --Timecop 07:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable blog. -- (aeropagitica) 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as blogcruft. Actually, the reference is to the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. And all articles are not created equal, and are not endowed by their creator with any unalienable rights... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry. Got the two confused. Fixed now.Hosterweis 07:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable vanity - Femmina 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Vanity --Depakote 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. God bless User:Timecop's anti-bloggery page. Proto t c 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Tapir
- Delete Notable? I think not. Jmax- 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC) User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
- Delete nn blogcrap. Eusebeus 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as non-notable vanity. Ajwebb 22:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as Hosterweis says, this is precisely the kind of thing Wikipedia could do with massively less of. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete although I'm sure the US Constitiution never uses unalienable. It's inalienable. This is blatant non-notable advertising. Dan 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The US Constitution doesn't use it at all, believe it or not. It's in the Declaration of Independence though, where it really is "unalienable". You're right it ought to be "Inalienable rights", but it isn't. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page
- Delete as non-notable weblog. http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/ has Alexa traffic rank of 2,470,548 (rank of 10,000 needed for website to be considered notable). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 07:39Z
- Keep. The article fits the category as well as the other articles in the category. To be consistent, you'd need to delete all of them or none. Simple fairness demands basic consistency. 71.137.119.209 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- We're workign on it. Please point out any "other articles in this category" which need to be deleted either on my talk page or [[13]]. --Timecop 05:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The claim of only "five Google hits" is silly and obviously untrue (probably meant as an exaggeration not to be taken literally). If the Google search is refined to "The Inalienable Right"+"blog" for instance, you can see a far greater number of hits (references to the blog in the search output are relatively easily spotted by all three words being capitalized). Better yet, if you search Yahoo for "link:http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog −site:federalistjournal.com", you can see about 30,000 incoming links. There are a large number of links from other right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and Rathergate (not linked from the blogroll, but linked from within individual blog entries). The characterization of this page as self-promotion also seems inaccurate, it appears to be a straightforward description of the blog. We don't delete articles on political grounds just because of their right-wing politics; although this is hardly an "A-list" blog it certainly appears to meet the minimum notability threshold. -- Curps 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Notice that it's the same sites linking to it over and over that's causing the hits: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.federalistjournal.com%2Ffedblog+-site%3Afederalistjournal.com&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-pull-web-t&b=91 Tapir 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not exactly, no. Yahoo truncates the listing after only 94 entries with the notice "we have omitted some entries very similar to the ones already displayed"; however they seem to do the truncation way too drastically and entirely omit entire sites. Just one example, well-known (notorious?) right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin links to them on at least two occasions: [14] [15], but this doesn't show up at all in the above drastically truncated 94 entries. It's not clear why, but if you try an alternative search, searching Yahoo for "linkdomain:federalistjournal.com", then you can discover many of those omitted incoming links (including the Malkin links). It's hardly surprising that the majority of incoming links come from fellow bloggers of a similar ideological bent, but that's true of pretty much every single blog in existence. Again, this is hardly an A-list blog, but it does seem to meet minimal notability and verifiability criteria and there is no indication of its article being self-promotion. -- Curps 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Notice that it's the same sites linking to it over and over that's causing the hits: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.federalistjournal.com%2Ffedblog+-site%3Afederalistjournal.com&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-pull-web-t&b=91 Tapir 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you have to spend that much time proving notability, then it is definitely NOT notable. thanks. --Timecop 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- No time at all. Two Yahoo searches, and the second one is only necessary because of what appears to be a bug in Yahoo's "linkdomain" functionality. -- Curps 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you have to spend that much time proving notability, then it is definitely NOT notable. thanks. --Timecop 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Many of the above voters appear to be GNAA members or meatpuppets responding to Timecop's "war on blogs", who don't seem to do much on Wikipedia other than "warring on blogs" and engaging in minor pranks or vandalism (for instance, User:Femmina adding User:Depakote's name to the List of big-bust models and performers [16]). Closing admin please take note. -- Curps 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, what we have here is a non-notable political bullshit blog trying to increase pagerank by being in wikipedia. Nothing else. I could care less what party it belongs to, I don't give a slightest shit about politics. --Timecop 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Belive it or not, User:Depakote actually is a big-bust model and performer. - Femmina 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable WhiteNight T | @ | C 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Admins, there appears to have been some 'vote' rigging (not that it's exactly changed the course of the discussion) going on. See [18]. I'd like my vote put back, oh and changed to Extra, extra Delete. No, really, I just found that and didn't know how to fix it myself. Dan 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I put them back - why curps would remove them, I don't know. He's usually a trusted administrator so I'm going to assume good faith that it was an accident. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Uh oh. It turns out I was editing Tapir's old version: see [19], namely his 18:59 5 January edit, and I obviously missed the "You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page" warning. My apologies, that really sucks. They really ought to make the out-of-date warning a lot more prominent, maybe change the background color or something, it's far too easy to miss. [I have now done just that, see below] Here's what happened: after I noticed Tapir's "MUSHROOMS ARE NOT FUCKING VEGETABLES YOU IGNORANT AMERICANS" edit at Pizza and making an edit there, I checked out his other contributions and found the "war on blogs" contributions. I clicked on diff to examine his edit, and then obviously clicked on "edit this page" at the top of the page and missed the "out-of-date" warning. By truly unfortunate coincidence, the last edit prior to mine turned out to be Tapir's second edit (22:19, 8 January 2006) to this page, so when I later clicked on the article history and found an edit by Tapir just before my own, everything appeared exactly as expected. Sorry about that, it was in no way intentional. -- Curps 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I have now made the "editing an out-of-date version" warning WAY more prominent (a standard messagebox rather than mere text). -- Curps 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Check it out:
- Ok, I put them back - why curps would remove them, I don't know. He's usually a trusted administrator so I'm going to assume good faith that it was an accident. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 WARNING: |
| You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page. |
| If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be removed. |
-
-
-
- Comment - Placing your ugly template here is misleading for people who may want to continue to vote. Remove that and this comment please. -- Femmina 06:52, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PodNova
non-notable advertisement of a blog/podcast aggregator Timecop 07:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - and think about the childrens - Femmina 07:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Per Femmina <3 Cptchipjew 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Advert, vanity. Incognito 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Hmmm. 843,000 Google hits. However, because all of them are exactly the same, it excludes 842,949 of them from view (see here). --Hosterweis 07:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Incognito. --Depakote 11:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. delete. DELETE! __earth 12:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think this could go either way. Not sure if it meets WP:WEB but it is known in the podcasting world. Cyde Weys votetalk 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- How well known? I'm not into podcasting myself but if you could convince me, I'd consider overturning my decision. __earth 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't. Delete. Tapir
- I don't have a good way to answer that. Podcasts are useless without a good aggregator, you see, and so many have sprung up in the podcasting world. This is one of those. Typically podcast writers will work to get their podcast listed on as many different aggregators as they can find. There are some really big ones, like Podcast.net and iTMS, and then the medium-sized ones, like PodNova. I'm just not sure how to vote. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I couldn't change my vote =(. But you might be interested in User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs. That's the reason why there're too many delete vote here. Most people that vote here do it without even considering the site notability.__earth 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I do know that several people have this page on watchlist, and generally agree with all the content nominated here. I know you do too, and appreciate your "support". --Timecop 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I couldn't change my vote =(. But you might be interested in User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs. That's the reason why there're too many delete vote here. Most people that vote here do it without even considering the site notability.__earth 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- How well known? I'm not into podcasting myself but if you could convince me, I'd consider overturning my decision. __earth 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advert Jmax- 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and give him a medal for doing yoeman work on ridding WP of this detritus! Eusebeus 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It would be pointless to have stubby little articles on every podcsting directory on the internet. Plus, prejudicially, how many times can you fit podcast in an article? Dan 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:38, 10 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). Not quite a two thirds majority, and I'm also concerned with a massive GNAA influx of voters early on in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] W.bloggar
- W.bloggar was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-11. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar/2005-02-11.
nn piece of software; every google hit after the first page is a blog post of someone testing out aforementioned software Hosterweis 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - advertising for a useless software product - Femmina 07:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I won't write this under every time it occurs, but this is totally immaterial. We comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone wants to aid Wikipedia by improving the ratio af signal to noise, I don't care if they eat babies for breakfast. They could go about it with a bit more subtlety, and the quality of the nominations would be improved by linking to the searches (and perhaps an Alexa ranking per WP:WEB or the actual blogs), but ad hominum attacks are not on. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The notes are intended to inform the admin who ends up closing the AfD, so that they can consider GNAA's coordinated effort to delete blog-related articles. They aren't personal attacks. I don't think these coordinated votes should be counted at all. I remember other users from the last group of nominations who agree about this. Rhobite 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I recall users who felt that we should focus on the issues and not who raised them. Your more recent annotations are perfectly acceptable to me as they are not about the person. If you want to start throwing out all "co-ordinated votes", I'd suggest that you nominate Schoolwatch at WP:MFD. However, since this is not a vote, I'd support a closing admin who disregarded any recomendation that did not provide any rational per the Guide_to_deletion.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I recall users who felt that we should focus on the issues and not who raised them. Your more recent annotations are perfectly acceptable to me as they are not about the person. If you want to start throwing out all "co-ordinated votes", I'd suggest that you nominate Schoolwatch at WP:MFD. However, since this is not a vote, I'd support a closing admin who disregarded any recomendation that did not provide any rational per the Guide_to_deletion.
- The notes are intended to inform the admin who ends up closing the AfD, so that they can consider GNAA's coordinated effort to delete blog-related articles. They aren't personal attacks. I don't think these coordinated votes should be counted at all. I remember other users from the last group of nominations who agree about this. Rhobite 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I won't write this under every time it occurs, but this is totally immaterial. We comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone wants to aid Wikipedia by improving the ratio af signal to noise, I don't care if they eat babies for breakfast. They could go about it with a bit more subtlety, and the quality of the nominations would be improved by linking to the searches (and perhaps an Alexa ranking per WP:WEB or the actual blogs), but ad hominum attacks are not on. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- So what Gay Niggers can't vote? From when? - Femmina 10:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Incognito 07:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominated. It's ok to cover some wildly popular blogging tools, but there's no point to list hundreds of the ones like these. --Timecop 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep Several hundred hits indicates at least somewhat wide use, which is why this passed VFD the first time around. Also, fix the page so it actually links to here. Night Gyr 08:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement --Depakote 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Proto t c 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Jmax- 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- All of the above user's edits are to blog AfD's except for 2. Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Tapir
- All of the above user's edits are to blog AfD's except for 8. Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree with “delete” arguments. I don’t blog, and I don’t use Windows, but I disagree that this software is useless, and I see nothing here that’s blatantly subjective, so I don’t think it constitutes “advertising” any more than does, say, “Microsoft Windows.” The only thing that’s missing here is a comparison (or link to a comparison) to like software. For instance, Wikipedia is probably the only hope for a query like “show me a list of blog client software that implements the MetaWeblog protocol.”
To say this is an “advertisement” (in the sense of “marketing”) is tantamount to saying that this was contributed by a W.bloggar insider, is it not? (Don’t confuse “advertising” with an enthusiastic user’s testimonial.) Frankly I consider that a reckless assertion, not (evidently) based on fact.
I don’t have any opinion on W.bloggar’s notability though. —Fleminra 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete point above notwithstanding, this is nn, non-encyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Hosterweis. There is no shortage of tried-once blogs and no shortage of crap software for making them with. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, well-known blog software. Rhobite 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, 320,000 google hits. --Interiot 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, well-known software with wide usability.--SarekOfVulcan 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, 320K hits but I'm not seeing anything impressive. A single hit on news, and only 35 group hits. It would be nice to see the alexa ranking of the homepage, but I can't seem to connect. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No edits before today, and no edits outside AfD. Rhobite 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- So was I mistaken when I thought wikipedia was "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? Forallah 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone can edit, but AfD requires some familarity with the way things work, as well as caution about people with goals other than the project's in mind. Plese don't take it as a personal thing. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have read all of the wikipedia rules and etc., I am completely familiar with the system. (Pillars, etc.) Is an AfD not also editing wikipedia? Forallah 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Replying on User Talk:Forallah. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone can edit, but AfD requires some familarity with the way things work, as well as caution about people with goals other than the project's in mind. Plese don't take it as a personal thing. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to have to assume good faith Forallah and hope you continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia. However I would just like to say that in the future try to include more information in your AfDs than just "as per norm". Tom Foolery 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- So was I mistaken when I thought wikipedia was "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? Forallah 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No edits before today, and no edits outside AfD. Rhobite 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The amount of google hits are hard to ignore, and the alexa rankings only are a sliver short of WP:WEB. WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Already commented/voted above WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep given the number of google hits... Mairi 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per strong Googles. FCYTravis 07:02, 11 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. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Javacast
non-notable concept with a single homepage hosted at Geocities. Timecop 07:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Podcast; this doesn't deserve an article in its own right. -- (aeropagitica) 07:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nn. Google brings up a ton-and-a-half of nothing. --Hosterweis 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Podcruft. Incognito 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per above --Depakote 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, crufty neologism. Proto t c 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete lol geocities Tapir User had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
- Delete advertising Jmax- 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC) User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
- Delete what Tapir said. Eusebeus 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. -Casting neologisms (and those who create them) will burn in silicon hell. Dan 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete yet another foocast. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Grr... Timecop, please improve the quality of your nominations a little by providing us with some evidence that you've done your homework. If you provide the links that show that things are not notable, people will take them more seriously and you are more likely to get um, uninvolved people to agree with you. It also wouldn't hurt to space them out a bit more? Fairly low Google, nothing on News. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page
- Delete per all the above deletion reasons. Cptchipjew 10:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. -- Femmina 17:38, 10 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. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Photocasting
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photocasting&btnG=Google+Search 500 google hits for a non-notable concept (um, uploading photos to a website anyone?) nn neolojizzum. Timecop 07:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This appears to be a neologism at the moment. The author needs to assert the concepts' notable status. Surely anthing that can be rendered digitally has the potential to be -cast? -- (aeropagitica) 07:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This foocasting rubbish has to stop! Non-notable. Incognito 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete User:Timecop seems to be on the warpath against this kind of thing; see his user page. Still, most of his nominations seem to be correct. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - cast this non-notable advertising into /dev/null - Femmina 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per above... --Depakote 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Femmina --Hosterweis 13:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE per above Tapir
- Delete. Agreed, Incognito Jmax- 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Eusebeus 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete with predjudice against the -casting trend. NN-Neologism. Dan 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete trivial neologism Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with all the other foocasting articles to Podcasting genres and derivatives. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 23:01Z
-
- But please let's have a redirect at Listcruft of podcruft :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- But please let's have a redirect at Listcruft of podcruft :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Batmanand 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP AND NOTE Steve Jobs just announced support for this in iPhoto during his keynote --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP and expand. Photocasting will take off in a big way soon, it's the standardization of photoblog rss feeds, such as those distributed by Flikr, for distribution to devices like pmps and applications which turn the rss feeds into screensavers etc- it is NOT just a facet of iPhoto. This article will become important very soon. This unsigned vote was placed by 88.109.46.177 at 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
- That's ok - when it does we should have good article on it. Until then I think that wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP and expand Just realized I was looking at the photocast aricle not photcasting... oh well... I'm a little late to the party and I apparently don't get this moderation process, which appears to be over. :) ...but I assure you photocasting IS about more than iPhoto and it does have a big future. I'm very knowledgeable on the subject and will work on the photocast article when I get a chance. It isn't the worst article I've seen around, in fact it contains a pretty good dose of info to start with. I've been working on the vlog article... and that's actually worse... perhaps BECAUSE it has so much attention. It is getting there though. --mmeiser 11:38, 16 July 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. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mary and Karla Show
non-notable spam advertisement of some unknown blog (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Mary+and+Karla+Show%22&btnG=Search) Timecop 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I downloaded and watched their show #28. It featured two ugly hick chicks drinking cheap wine, laughing histerically about nothing, and speaking in a way that was almost impossible to understand. If this is the "future of the web", god help us all. --Timecop 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - go advertise your crappy "show" somewhere else. Thanks. - Femmina 09:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as Femmina. Scoo 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ridiculous, Not notable. --Depakote 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Undecided If it's in the iTunes Top 100 Podcasts list it would seem to be notable, wouldn't it? DavidFarmbrough 12:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nn advertisement - Hosterweis 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Proto t c 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Advert. Incognito 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Mary and Karla are said to have been the first podcasters to use a signature catch-phrase." IMPRESSIVE. Delete. Tapir User had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
- Delete as per Femmina. Jmax- 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC) User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
- Delete, preferably with an RPG. NN. Dan 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanispamcruftisement with probably the single least catchy tagline I've ever seen - which may be indicative of the overall standard of the "show". Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - if "Mmmmmkay" is the most notable thing about it, I'll help with the RPG. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 01:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page
- Delete per nom. Eusebeus 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nuke this hell I live in the SAME STATE, a mere 25 minute drive from these people and I've never heard of their show. Clearly they dont belong here. ALKIVAR™
10:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) - Keep. Doesn't seem to be an advert, just a little stub on a show that's consistently one of the top video podcasts on iTunes, Podcast Ally, etc. I say it should stay. If shows like Dawn & Drew have pages, why exclude others? 24.211.106.246 03:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Will
- Thanks for reminding about DAn and Drew show. It will be deleted eventually. Because it has alexa ranking of 17k and only several hundred unique google hits. --Timecop 03:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- delete, this reads as an advert to me --Justwes 05:53, 9 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. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Skypecasting
Yes because combining two useless words together makes it even more useless. non-notable concept, etc Timecop 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep - 187,000 hits on google, many articles explaining what it is, eg [21] --Oscarthecat 08:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep , possible Merge with other podcasting articles (see possible merge of podnography et al). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 09:06Z
- Delete - possible delete or just delete - Femmina 09:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep many google hits including slashdot and new scientist -- Astrokey44|talk 10:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not very notable --Depakote 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care if it has google hits. It's a neologism. Delete, and if that won't work, redirect to Skype. Proto t c 13:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (or more weakly, merge) per Proto. --Hosterweis 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Podcast if the information is required at all. -- (aeropagitica) 15:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Nom. --Kilo-Lima 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Worthless foocasting neologism. Incognito 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --kingboyk 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom TapirUser had 8 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
- Delete No. Jmax- 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes
- Delete This should just be trashed. Eusebeus 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. For reasons stated above. Oh and hello to all the new editors. -- JJay 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- How could you possibly vote to Strong Keep this????? Eusebeus 05:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Check JJay's voting history: some people have less of a problem with trivia than others; JJay seems not to mind it as long as it's verifiable, which is his prerogative. I disagree, but that's mine. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I also dislike block voting and sockpuppets. -- JJay 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Check JJay's voting history: some people have less of a problem with trivia than others; JJay seems not to mind it as long as it's verifiable, which is his prerogative. I disagree, but that's mine. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
- How could you possibly vote to Strong Keep this????? Eusebeus 05:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for preference, but perhaps merge all foocasting to one single Cruft-O-Rama. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Skype. Tom Foolery 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page
- Delete per other delete votes. Cptchipjew 10:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Mergewith Skype which is hardly a useless word. Crunch 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge per above WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - was looking for SkypeCasting on Google. Found this article. Now I understand what the term is about!
- 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 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NetworkAnatomy
Article created by User:NetworkAnatomy, reads like an advert, company is apparently not publicly quoted (see WP:CORP), and scores ~800 Google hits, which seem to be mostly press releases. Has been in business for a bit under 4 years, whihc is long enough for the word to spread if they are genuinely notable. I think this is vanispamcruftisement. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Anatomy (disambiguation). Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- NetworkAnatomy has reponded to immediately delete the insertion of disambiguous alternatives which caused an unexpected vanity appearance. NetworkAnatomy, while starting out in 2002, went into revenue operations in 2004 after nearly two years of development. Notariety (direct interests) since 2004 have grown by 247% and continue today. We are an up and coming company with growing independent writings and evaluations on our work. We followed the standard corporate outlines already presented in Wikipedia. The compliance rules for Wikipedia are not trivial so we look forward to the support to make it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetworkAnatomy (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. Page verges on incomprehensible at points, and the subject is not notable enough to justify keeping an article about them free of advertising POV and properly written. --Last Malthusian 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Last Malthusian. Stifle 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as not meeting WP:CORP. Suspect ulterior motive of nominator may be to use the word vanispamcruftisement. ;) Turnstep 23:51, 7 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 13:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Holy Empire of Reunion
Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like to add your vote to this page, please follow these instructions:
- Click the Edit link
- Go to the end of the page
- Use English
- Add a line like the following
*'''Keep''' Reason to keep ~~~~
This will create a line that looks like this:
- Keep Reason to keep Your IP Address 14:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you continue to participate. --JeremyStein 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Non-notable micronation, article may also be a copyvio but contributor claims text is PD, delete--nixie 16:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
DeleteStrong Delete Article created by the person who started thisclubmicronation. It's unlikely that anyone outside of this group will ever want to help clean up the article to make it more balanced. --JeremyStein 16:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)- I changed my vote to strong delete after seeing the flood of anonymous supporters and vote tampering. The most applicable Wikipedia policy would be WP:WEB, by which this site does not qualify as notable. --JeremyStein 14:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Appears to be a variation on the vanity page theme. Atrian 19:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Vote tampering! - the above vote was changed to "Keep it" by 201.8.142.53 [30] I have reverted it. --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Abstain.I don't know if this micronation is notable, but the article needs a lot of work. Use Sealand for a good template. --Billpg 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)- Keep, but add a cleanup tag. The article has improved a lot, but still needs work. --Billpg 08:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete test article. Gazpacho 20:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep it The text is public domain, I guarantee it and I will ask them to state on their page that it is PUBLIC DOMAIN. We are so many micronationalists in the world and I doubt nobody will contribute Claudre 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- keep itI'm ambassador of Republic of Orange in Reunion and don't agree with this delection, It's very important text to the new novice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.91.18 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Keep it I disagree with previous comments since Reunion is one of the first and still is the biggest player in Portuguese-speaking (Lusophone) micronations, as well as is member of many intermicronational organizations both in the Anglophonia and Lusophonia. It is not a club or a non-notable micronation (have those who wanted to delete it, actually visited its website? Plus many people out of Reunion will surely want to contribute, as it has generated many other more micronations. -- Ralph, 22:24 5 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.81.52 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- This comment above is mine. I didn't intend to signup to wikipedia just in order to add a comment, but now I was forced to due to the accusations of sockpuppetting. Also I was not aware of the syntax, now I am getting it. Cresci 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Keep it Reunion is the biggest lusophone micronation, worldwide known, keep the page.. -- Tsavkko, 20:40 5 january 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.22.208 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Delete. Micronations sometimes become famous enough, as is the case with Sealand, to merit an article. However, this micronation has not reached that stage yet, and this paticular standard of article will not help it get there either. Dan 22:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Vote tampering! - the above comment was removed by 200.152.2.245 when he added the comment below [31] --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Reunion has been portrayed by the media all over the world. Just look at some of the links I wrote below. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Vote tampering! - the above comment was removed by 200.152.2.245 when he added the comment below [31] --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it Keep the description!! Everybody loves Reunion! -- Greenspan, 21:04 5 january 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.152.2.245 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Delete NN fake nation, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Fake nation, yes, perfect for the category FICTITIOUS COUNTRIES, don´t you think? FICTITIOUS = FAKE. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
-
-
- Keep it!!! According to the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, an encyclopedia is “a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.” Wikipedia must contain all the encompassing aspects of micronations. As to this subject, not talking about the Holy Empire of Reunion shall be unacceptable, because Reunion is the most famous among the Portuguese speaking micronations. It will be a shame for Wikipedia the deletion of this article. José --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Non-notable? --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- The NY Times (USA) does not agree: [32] --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- La Liberátion (FRANCE) does not agree: [33] --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Ta Nea (Greece) does not agree: [34] --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- O Diario de Pernambuco(BRAZIL) does not agree: [35] --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Writer of ILS NE SIEGENT PAS A L'ONU does not agree: [36] - I can look for more if necessary. --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- There´s also LA REPUBBLICA, LE QUOTIDIEN, ESTADO DE SAO PAULO, VISAO (portugal), etc. Claudre 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- By the way, I welcome reductions and contributions to the initial article; maybe it´s too large, or even with an English that is not so good...But Reunion is notable. (I am the author, BTW) Claudre 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Please note that Claudre has already voted above. --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jeremy, I never wished to "vote again". I just want to say that Reunion has been in the media almost as much as Sealand. But, as your friend here said, "death to micronations". He forgot to say Sieg Heil! I wonder if he will be reported for trolling.... No... of course not.Claudre 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Please note that Claudre has already voted above. --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of the referenced articles that I can read (those in English), Reunion is not the subject of the article, merely an example. The subject of micronations is notable. Reunion is notable only as an example on the micronations article. -- --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy JeremyStein 14:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Reunion is notable, and has been mentioned in sources outside of Micronations. And the fact that this isn't the first time a Micronation has been scrutinized like this shows that the Wikipedia should perhaps re-evaluate its stance on micronations. User:Tonerman 15:29 PST, 1/5/2006 --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- keep it The Holy Empire of Reunion is one of the most important micronations of the World, Claudio de Castro it's founding father is one of the most loved persons on the Island of Reunion, a France Ultramarine domain. The importance of this article isn't only for the micronationalism itself, but for the french citzens of the Island of Reunion. It was even mentioned by President Chirac in 1997. 201.8.51.13 23:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Jorge Adamatti --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Delete and redirect to micronation. This on line game club is real. It has a mention on the micronation page as an example of a 'virtual' micronation simulation. It does not need its own page explaining it rules, any more than an Everquest guild does. This page is created as advertising for their web game. Real but non notable beyond entry on other page.Obina 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Obina we need no advertising we just think we deserve to be here like ALL THE OTHER "game clubs" (SIC) listed at the category FICTITIOUS COUNTRIES. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
-
-
-
- keep it Zachary Vance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.13.26 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Keep I am against Delection! Sure! Reunion is a mark to the micronations! Lucianot - Cool! lucianot --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Delete. Non-notable micronation. The article is very hard to read too. Rhobite 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Non Notable being on the media all over the world? Ok. If the article is bad, let´s change it. Not delete it. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
-
-
- KEEP IT!!! We must support the concept of micronatia. And we support the article by our dear friends in Reunion. Signed, James E Bentz II, Chancellor, Empire of Tebeakesse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tebeakesse (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- PORRA, DELETAR REUNIÃO???? CEIS SAUM DOIDO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.151.87.21 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- The above comment was originally added to the top of the page; I moved it here. Please translate this to English. I believe it says something like "Delete Reunion? That's crazy" --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Death to micronations (except Sealand) Denni ☯ 03:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- A nice way to justify an opinion. Adolf Hitler would agree. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
-
-
- Bold textse vcs deletarem reunião eu vou dar... porraada. gerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.151.87.21 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- The above comment was also added near the top of the page. Please translate this to English. --JeremyStein 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- It means "I am going to be very mad if someone deletes Reunion"... LOL, That´s just the support I need :-/ Claudre 12:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- The above comment was also added near the top of the page. Please translate this to English. --JeremyStein 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it. This is one of the most important Micronations of this style. That is enought to keep it. I am Spence, King of Zarahemla, friend of Reunion --anonymous vote and sole contribution to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.227.238 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Delete non-notable --Ajdz 05:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep itI'm the Secretary General of L.o.S.S, Nicholas Paul Nix, B.S., M.P.A., and it is unfortunate that bookburners wish to delete this article as if it never existed. I hope that articles like this will continue to help advance the public's knowledge of historical events that have occurred outside the context of what can be considered usual history
--SGLOSS , 6 January 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.13 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy - The community of Reunion was one of the shining success stories of twentieth century micronationalism. Not only did it involve active participants from the continent of South America, opening doors to whole new languages and cultures, but it influenced a generation of similar micronational communities. I am proud, after so many years, to still call myself a friend of Reunion. You should be as well, this article must stay. - Vincent of Morovia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.198.232.65 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Delete. Non-notable micronation. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 09:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- (NOT A VOTE) If there is a category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_countries for Fictional Countries, why can´t Reunion be listed with so many of Its partners and friends? Maybe RACISM because we are mostly Brazilians? Claudre 11:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Comment - that category should be for countries created in notable works of literature, film, etc. Narnia and Oceana are good examples. --Ajdz 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP IT! There´s only true information, about true people, enjoying their hobby. Micronations on web is a strong reality since the beggining of the commercial internet. Filipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.186.86.130 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- STRONG KEEP IT. Micronationry is a well-established phenomena, practised by thousands of fans, and Holy Empire of Réunion is one of the oldest and most important micronations in activity. Only prejudice and unreliable misunderstandments could justify eliminating this interesting article.--Cava —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.93.83 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Keep Réunion is one of the main sites of micronational hobby 200.223.106.203 19:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Keep it!!! Any micronationalist will know that the Holy Empire of Reunion is one of the major micronations. I am surprised that some wikipedians have such a bizarre desire to delete pages about micronationalism, especially considering the seriousness with which micronationalists themselves hold their movement. User:NicholasJB --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- The "Holy Empire of Reunion" is not a nation; it's a web site. It's a web site dedicated to prepending that it's significant. You can go ahead and declare war with the Purple Bunny Federation or develop diplomatic ties with the Flying Islands of Jasonia but at some point you're going to bump into the real world. The bank won't take your currency, your parking ticket will not be waived on diplomatic immunity, and you can't have your pretend country listed in the encyclopedia. --JeremyStein 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- It´s not a nation. It´s a FICTITIOUS nation, just right for wikipedia Category FICTITIOUS COUNTRIES. 200.142.120.138 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- What about including the article in the CATEGORY "micronations", where you can find the PRINCIPALITY OF FREEDONIA and the nation of Atlantium, which have received less attention of the media compared to Reunion? Which are "game clubs" like Reunion? We have signed treaties with them, for God´s Sake, what makes them different? Claudre 12:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- The "Holy Empire of Reunion" is not a nation; it's a web site. It's a web site dedicated to prepending that it's significant. You can go ahead and declare war with the Purple Bunny Federation or develop diplomatic ties with the Flying Islands of Jasonia but at some point you're going to bump into the real world. The bank won't take your currency, your parking ticket will not be waived on diplomatic immunity, and you can't have your pretend country listed in the encyclopedia. --JeremyStein 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Strong Keep It! I really don´t know why you thought about deleting this page, because Reunioun is the most important portuguese-language micronation! This page is so important to micronationalism, cointaining a lot of information to us. José Paulo de Siqueira Guida 200.195.8.134 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- "keep it!" and grow up. this page isnt hurting anyone and is "containg a lot of information". liam. --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- What the bloody hell is this? Delete per WP:BALLS, WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:VSCA, and send to BJAODN if desired. Stifle 14:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Restored vote by Stifle that was inadvertly removed, I believe no ill intent J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- delete per Stifle, and most of the established users above J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - notable, established organization. MattHucke(t) 20:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Merge to micronation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 22:47Z
- Delete as non-notable. Google only has 25 links to www.reuniao.org, most of which are micronation directories or personal sites (e.g. geocities/tripod). Would support a merge. Turnstep 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Reason to keep: This is one of the most important Micronations of this style. That is enough to keep it. I am Spence, King of Zarahemla, friend of Reunion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HRHSpence (talk • contribs) . --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
- Delete, mainly per Stifle. --Academia de las Artes y las Ciencias 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; irrelevant article probably created for advertising purposes. --OneEuropeanHeart 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - "Sao Francisco", heh. Seriously, it looks like nonsense to me, esp. with the 20-year-old leader... assuming it is a micronation it is like someone starting one in their backyard - it is that notable... WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, non-notable article, contains sections with unverifiable information, possible fancruft case, not all web content (including micronations) should have an article, possible vanity case, only one POV (creator), possible advertisement/spam case. COA 11:09, 11 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. Ichiro 06:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Long Goodbye (film)
Text was taken from The Long Goodbye, but I restored it to that article. The book & movie are similar enough that they should remain one article, and the movie isn't notable enough on its own to merit its own article or to be anything more than a stub. Klaw ¡digame! 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There is no point in having two seperate articles about the same subject using the same text. Researchers gain nothing from this. -- (aeropagitica) 21:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article has now been changed sufficiently to warrant a separate page from the novel. -- (aeropagitica)
22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) - Merge and redirect Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 22:01Z
-
- Comment. The content in this article is already in The Long Goodbye, so a merge vote is tantamount to a delete. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment there's also an Erasure song by that name, so possibly a disambig might make sense. No vote for now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the one who seperated it, and removed the movie info from the book page. The movie info has since been returned to the main page. It should be seperate pages, IMO, because the book and movie have almost nothing to do with each other. Robert Altman was attempting to make an Anti-noir film. Either way, it's two seperate things. Otherwise, why not just combine all books with movies, which it appears we aren't doing. This isn't a case of a book made into a movie, like say, the Big Sleep which was written for the film or the Postman Always Rings Twice, which follows the book closly. It would be like having the animated Lord of the Rings movies tacked onto the end of the LOTR book pages. Either way works for me. Just don't flame my talk page.Steve-O 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- A book and movie typically go in one article if either (or both) lacks the notability to stand on its own, or if they're too closely linked to be separated. In this case, the movie isn't notable on its own, and its plot is extremely close to the book's. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep —If that was the case, then why does The Big Sleep have two seperate entries for the film versions? An interesting argument. I would like to know what people think that have read the book and seen the film. I've added to the article today. Steve-O 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- A book and movie typically go in one article if either (or both) lacks the notability to stand on its own, or if they're too closely linked to be separated. In this case, the movie isn't notable on its own, and its plot is extremely close to the book's. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — both articles have sufficient content to keep them separate. Movie productions are rarely if ever exact duplicates of the novels on which they are based. So I don't have an issue with separate articles, as long as they are well-developed. — RJH 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as the film article is well-developed (i.e. not a stub), it should stand on its own. I think Steve has sufficiently expanded the film information to merit its own article. I think the precedent was set long ago that film versions can be separate from their novel's articles. They should only remain attached when the film is an integral part of explaining the novel (not the case here by a long shot) or if neither article can stand alone (two stubs combined to form a decent-sized article). Volatile 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The book is one thing and the film is another. Both versions are cultural and artistic artifacts on their own merits. I've read the book and seen the film; Chandler does his 1950's L.A. literary thing, and Altman takes it and runs with it in a purely 1970's L.A. cinematic way. Perhaps some editing and clean-up is warranted, but outright deletion is not.
- Strong Keep -- The book and movie differ in notable ways. I can't imagine merging them into a single article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 9 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.
![[12]](http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/afghanistan_ethnoling_97.jpg){kind=link}