Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 3

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. Spam Madchester 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serveo

Deprodded. This is essentially vanispamcruftisement. Fails google test. Chaser T 00:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete utter spam. Nothing at all notable on google. Viridae^Talk 01:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn spam per nom. Crum375 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails google, sounds like an advert = spam -- Alias Flood 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam -- IslaySolomon 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't like spam. Ace of Sevens 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's not a spam. It's an actual product that a lot of people are using. Please help me modify the article to the wiki standards. Serveo 02:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's unlikely, but check out WP:CORP and the relevant links from WP:VSCA. Leave me a message on my talk page if you want specific help.--Chaser T 02:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with fire Danny Lilithborne 02:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all program articles posted by users with the same name as the product. SM247^{My Talk} 03:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn spam. Fireplace 04:06, 3 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The result of the debate was kept Nom withdrawn, mistake on my part to nom it Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skate punk

Non notable fad genre, possible hoax and even if someone were to write up a guideline on inclusion of music genres (I don't feel like wading through pages and pages of WP:MUSIC to find out as it's mostly irrelevent anyway) a genre recognized such a small group cannot be considered notable, article is also . Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, but with massive clean up The article is rubbish. Pure rubbish. However, skate punk is absolutely a viable genre. Uh, a hoax? No. That would be quite an elaborate hoax, considering the two hundred edits made to the page and the fact that it's existed for over three years. Obviously, not all of them relate to the music genre (although most of the first thirty hits do), but "Skate punk" gets 317,000 total and 681 unique Google hits. The article undoubtedly needs work, but there's absolutely no reason it should be deleted. And if the nominator feels that the genre is recognized by a very narrow group, I'd ask him/her how many people recognize NOFX, U.S. Bombs, Pennywise, and pretty much every act that has ever been on the Warped Tour, which, of course, is a ludicrously popular tour- started by a skateboarding company- almost exclusively featuring punk bands. -- Kicking222 02:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Kicking222 is correct. This is absolutely a real and somewhat significant genre. Ace of Sevens 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, also agree with Kicking222. It's a real genre both culturally and financially (see Warped_Tour). However, article needs a rewrite to assert this.--IslaySolomon 02:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Kicking222. Skate punk is an actual and notable genre! —RJN 02:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kicking222. SM247^{My Talk} 03:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, this is a real genre. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. Not just a fad, and not a hoax. --DarkAudit 03:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kicking222. I've put a cleanup tag on the article, and put it on WikiProject Punk music's list of articles requiring cleanup. Oldelpaso 07:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kicking222. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Terminology is used by the mainstream music press "Using Californian hardcore as a foundation, the group incorporated funk-metal and skate-punk into their sound..." (allmusic) [1] --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• strong, strong keep as per above Artw 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep genre has been around for quite a while. JChap 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We would not delete Rock and Roll and whilst I doubt a similar historical significance, this is still verifiably notable. -- Alias Flood 23:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Its real alright. RFerreira 01:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep real and notable. I can't believe the nom thought this was a hoax when it gets 316,000 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per kicking222 and the notability of the trend/style hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:19, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 13:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DZK

non-notable re WP:BAND Bennie Noakes 01:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Also, vanity. It looks like most of the edits are from DZK himself. Bennie Noakes 01:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Actually looks like there is some claim to notability and appears popular. WP:MUSIC does not always have to be the ultimate truth, but could fall through the following clause[2]. This article does need cleanup and is guilty of WP:AUTO. Yanksox 01:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC) What is occuring with this comment? I'm not sure... Yanksox 11:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What clause? That Google search just shows that there are few hits relating to this guy, and a lot of the sites mentioning him are WP mirrors, MySpace, YTMND, and the like. -- Kicking222 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not refering to any clause, I'm just trying to use logic and rationale check out some of the sites. There appears to be some kind of underlying notability. It's obviously not world class level, but I weakly believe this should be a keep. Yanksox 02:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless can prove notability per WP:BAND via a reliable source. Crum375 01:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is there notability? Some. Is the article vanity? Yes. Are there reliable sources? No. Does he pass WP:MUSIC? No. -- Kicking222 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Need to verify chart success, if this can be done keep per WP:MUSIC -- Librarianofages 02:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --IslaySolomon 03:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Kicking222. --Shizane 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I vote delete and the site is about me, so go for it. I hereby sanction your censoring.---DZK ( http://www.soundclick.com/dzk ) 10:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Stipulating the above is accurate, I wouldn't consider writing the bumper music for a local sports show as meeting WP:MUSIC in any degree, and to be honest, those screenshots are eminently Photoshoppable. RGTraynor 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Yeah but it also falls under, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable."

• Delete:Non-notable. No biography or discography listed on All Music Guide. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  09:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. The artist himself said that it was a page about him. Mystache 15:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable musician. JChap 19:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and as per -DZK above - Alias Flood 23:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above users who feel that the article fails WP:MUSIC hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: No mention of touring, music appears to have only been distributed for free on a website, not actually released. Denaar 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If you look at various hip-hop message boards, you will see that there is a huge buzz surrounding DZK as a battle rapper and I have also recently heard that he is close to signing on with a major label (rumored to be Koch Records). He has also appeared in an issue of Murder Dog magazine and is made mention of on numerous hip-hop websites, as well as being noted as an inspiration to many aspiring rap artists. A DZK-produced beat is also featured in a Volkswagen add for the GX3, and he has also become the most prominent representative of the hip-hop scene in Northern Virginia.cdub1120 13:09, 6 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian military fiction

Listcruft, random listing of war fiction. Page was PROD tagged, but PROD was removed by the author with the statement: it happens these are the only books known to be written by Indians on military fiction. Hence the need to keep the page. That claim is just not tenable. ImpuMozhi 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. ImpuMozhi 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no evidence that this is either a prevalent or notable phenomenon AdamBiswanger1 02:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate list. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Please allow for organic expansion. -- Librarianofages 02:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Organic is a synonym for perpetual in this context -listcruft, I say. SM247^{My Talk} 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• MERGE with Indian Armed Forces under heading "In fiction" or "In population culture" —Pengo 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Pengo. JChap 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has only just started. The premise is sound, and could be a decent article if given time to grow. Unless there is an obvious reason to delete an article there should be a period allowed for them to develop. An article exploring the history and development of Indian military fiction sounds like a good academic subject. Rather than delete, let's encourage the author and give him the means to expand his article. SilkTork 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: An essay detailing the trend of "military fiction by writers who are Indian by nationality" sounds nice, even if one anticipates subjectivity problems. I would support the effort. But the article clearly does not envisage any such structuring. The author's assertion that these are the only works of military fiction ever written by Indians, and hence the article should be retained, does not support the assessment that informs the last sentence of this well-meaning vote. ImpuMozhi 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:AGF -- Alias Flood 23:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please believe me, there can be no question of not assuming good faith; see my comment above. ImpuMozhi 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If any of these works are notable, they should get their own articles, and then they can be unified with an appropriately-named category. --MCB 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - While an item by itself may not be notable or interesting enough for an article, when grouped together with similiar items it becomes of interest. An article on one ordinary person from Portugal wouldn't be interesting, while an article on the people of Portugal would. Interestingly while just doing a quick search for Airavat Singh, one of the authors mentioned in the article, I discovered that he is used as a reference source for the Kamboja Dynasty of Bengal article - so he does have some credibility. Also, I am tempted to be more patient to under-represented areas on Wikipedia. The majority of Wikipedians are young American males with an interest in comics, films and music - as such we are swamped with such articles, and it is right that we examine each new comic article carefully. However, articles on Indian literature are very rare and should not, I think, be hastily deleted. This article, as it stands, does no disservice to Wikipedia, and - given time (bear in mind that it was nominated for destru ction something like 9 days after first being written) - it may blossom into something that we all can be very proud of. SilkTork 08:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  Why, the other two authors are also eminent personalities, I don't doubt that their books are good. That's not the point. What is the sanctity of a listing of military fiction, where the only point is that the authors belong to a certain nationality? I can see that you have an interest in military fiction; will you take up the task of moulding the article into something worthwhile, on the lines indicated by you above? Otherwise, saying that the article should be retained on the vague off-chance of future improvement, when the creator of the piece states definitely that no such thing is on the anvil, make no sense to me. Anyway, it matters little in the great scheme of things. ImpuMozhi 16:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It seems an interesting topic to merit an article (maybe a category per MCB. But till all such books have their own article and a category, this article should remain). Hopefully, We may see an addition by other editors after the article getting attention in this forum - Lost 12:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I feel this topic has the potential to grow into an interesting article, give some time for it. I am doing a minor research to cull out some more details on this topic. I would suggest that this article be given some time before taking a decision on its deletion. Jordy 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Some of the authors and books may be notable, or maybe the information could be included in an article on "military fiction" or made into a category instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denaar (talk • contribs)
• Keep and tag for cleanup/wikification. The attitudes of the Indian writers (and their reading public) regarding fantasies of war with Pakistan are are interest and notability. Herostratus 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a difficult one this. I can readilly see the potential for a worthwhile article. What swings it for me, though, is that of the 5 works mentioned, one is by the author with a link to his own website. This seems, to me, and I readilly admit that I might be wrong, to be a loosely cloaked advert for his own views. I think it should be deleted, userfied and the author encouraged to develop it in his sandbox and come back later with an improved product. BlueValour 03:10, 8 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. Mailer Diablo 13:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patri Friedman

Vanity article. Non-notable individual other than his grandfather is the economist Milton Friedman J.R. Hercules 01:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• No Vote. Malformed AfD. Listed correctly now . Viridae^Talk 01:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, clearly a non notable person since having a famous grandfather does not make you automatically notable as shown by massive precedent, also working as a google engineer doesn't make him automatically notable either unless he's done something notable either himself or in that role. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lotsa G-hits, zero news hits. Friedman finished in the money — straining for notability is usually the clearest sign of non-notability. ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Abstain (see my comment below), on the basis of his knowledge and leadership in Seasteading. If Patri Friedman is non-notable, should Seastead go as well? If not for his relationship to seasteading, I'd say yes, delete for non-notability. Travisl 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Both of his listed co-authors in the Seastead article are redlinks. Seems awfully slim. Fan1967 02:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Almost all Google hits for Seasteading disappear if you remove the ones incuding Friedman and Gramlich. ~ trialsanderrors 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Bwithh's research on the seasteading AfD has convinced me otherwise. Until Friedman's book is published, I agree that he may be non-notable. Travisl 17:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. SM247^{My Talk} 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Referring to the notability guidelines, first of all it's clear that the primary consideration is met, namely that the subject of this article "has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research." I personally feel that this is indisputable in this case, but please respond if you disagree and I will try to provide demonstrative details. As far as the specifics, I believe that the subject's book and influence on seasteading constitute a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field," let alone the other aspects. Wiki is not paper, and it makes little sense to delete articles that are far more than sufficiently notable. --Daniel11 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Book doesn't seem listed on Amazon, but I still like to see evidence for his notability (please only the type that passes as reliable source). ~ trialsanderrors 03:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- IslaySolomon 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see Friedman (or Gramlich or House) rating more than a mention in the Seastead article, as he has no notability outside of that. Fan1967 03:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Bwithh 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• AFD Notification I have nominated Seastead up for deletion as a neologism (WP:NEO) with little impact Bwithh 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per J.R. Hercules. -- Kjkolb 12:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. His lineage, his blogging, and his poker do not individually make him notable for inclusion and when puttied together still fail BIO guidelines. No prejudice to recreation if he gains more notoriety in the poker world. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AlexDW 17:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Where to start with the smart-ass comments?

As book is not listed at Amazon, obviously fails the test of the marketplace.

Poker career is a king high, at best.

Boot this one out to a Seastead. JChap 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete so vain. --Burgwerworldz 23:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity -- Alias Flood 23:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity, sorry. RFerreira 01:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pure vanity, although it seems as if he could become notable in the future, so if he ever wins a WSOP bracelet or transforms Google, I'd be fine with a recreation hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Youngamerican. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with the policy of only including articles about notable things. Lawyer2b 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Patri is notable to quite a number of people, particularly in the libertarian and micro-nation community. His Seastead Project (which is now a book, the fact he doesn't sell through Amazon speaks only to his choice of commercial channels) proposes to replicate the SeaLand experience, and he is a noted performance artist, including his cluster balloon project at Burning Man. I live 3000 miles away from the man and I've known of him for years. That he is also a writer on the noted blog Catallarchy is also notable. It appears to me that there is a concerted campaign by some to delete from history persons of a libertarian bent. J.R. Hercules' own user discussion page exposes that he is an avid anti-gun anti-libertarian individual, and this AfD should be regarded simply as part of his vendetta against pro-liberty activists. I did a search of Amazon and other books use the term "seastead". User:Citizenposse69.173.98.243 17:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Seastead afd discussion Bwithh 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment J.R. Hercules' own user discussion page exposes that he is an avid anti-gun anti-libertarian individual

FYI, I do own a gun. I also could care less about Patri Friedman's political bent, whatever it is. And, like yourself (and everybody else in the world) I live thousands of miles away from a bunch of people, and have known of them for many years.//J.R. Hercules 19:09, 8 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. Source, source? Mailer Diablo 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maggie Loughran

listed by someone as nn-bio, not quite sure but it merits a vote-- – ugen64 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (my vote is Delete by the way - ugen64)

• Keep I can't see why article needs to be deleted. -- Librarianofages 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because creating articles about subjects insufficiently notable for an encyclopedia damages Wikipedia's attempt at creating a reputable encyclopedia, which is its primary purpose. Bwithh 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She sounds notable to me. --TruthbringerToronto 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Needs sources and would like to know more as she doesn't sound terribly notable, but keep for now. SM247^{My Talk} 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only 136 unique Google hits, less than half to irrelevant sites, book has an astonishing sales rank of 335,252 on Amazon.co.uk. Not ranked at all on Amazon.com. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep if expanded. --DarkAudit 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. Lots of the google hits are of the form "And at 2pm, we'll hear a presentation from..." I don't see evidence that she's "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field", etc. (WP:BIO).
• Delete as per Coredesat. Not encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Coredesat. Not encyclopedically notable. -- GWO
• Delete per Coredesat. She needs to do more than "sound" notable at a casual five second glance of the article, she needs to be notable. Her organization's alleged "non-profit" website is full of e-commerce links [3] and has an Alexa traffic rank of 1,297,392, besides wobbling dramatically on their claimed membership numbers. RGTraynor 09:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep primarily on the basis of having co-written a book in her field. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the book she has co-authored. [[4]] --MichaelMaggs 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I find two news articles (one BBC, one Coventry Evening Telegraph) where she appears as an also-ran. No encyclopedia-worthy track record in her own right. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete head of barely notable organization and poorly selling book. JChap 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Burgwerworldz 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedically notable. -- Alias Flood 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio; head of a somewhat minor organization for which neither she nor it has come to wide public or media notice. --MCB 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep upon the expansion of the article; if no expansion occurs, consider my vote changed to Delete hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the pivotal point is that it is unsourced so we cannot assume notability from the claims therein. I would have expected this AfD to bring forth sourcing if sources there be. BlueValour 03:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the numerous and valid reasons given above. Nuttah68 15:41, 8 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 laid upon the table. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Robinson (politician)

Local politician. Hard to search for due to a common name but I have not found any widespread press coverage so fails WP:BIO. Delete. TerriersFan 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, no, no per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yay Nay per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom IslaySolomon 02:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, maybe if the mayor (or not even then), but definitely not at the moment. SM247^{My Talk} 03:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete State office, maybe. Town council? Afraid that's not enough. --DarkAudit 03:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Previous attempt to delete in June 2005 was only half-submitted. Fireplace 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak keep per discussion at the previous AfD.--Chaser T 07:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Err ... so two people ignored WP:BIO to vote keep, and that's a reason to keep now? "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." A city councilman in North Carolina, that doesn't cut it. Heck, not all the city councilmen in Boston and NYC have articles. RGTraynor 08:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I know. It is a guideline. She represents over 20,000 people and has been in office for close to ten years. That's pretty close to the freshmen state reps that WP:BIO protects.--Chaser T 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• And the notion of a "guideline" is that we ought to be guided by it unless there's a compelling reason not to be, not that it can be thrown away whenever convenient. No doubt there's some elected head dogcatcher who works for a city of 500,000 and has been in office for fifty years, but as it stands, the standard is that state legislators are considered notable by definition, and municipal ones aren't. RGTraynor 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am persuaded. I think I have a bias in favor of people from politics and government, but since this discussion illuminated it, I should be able to check my bias better. Thanks.--Chaser T 19:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Most town council folks don't need articles unless they really make news somehow. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability beyond being on a city council, which is a position that is not inherently worthy of inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia does not need to have articles on small-town councilpersons without another compelling reason. JChap 20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO -- Alias Flood 23:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 00:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I hope that User:Seth Ilys, a longtime admin and rather prolific contributor who happens to have created the article at hand, might drop in and perhaps explain why he thought/thinks the subject to be notable (one imagines there may information not in the article that would suggest notability, but a cursory Googling doesn't demonstrate any). In the meanwhile/in the absence of any compelling new information, the nom, et al., seem altogether correct. Joe 05:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn politician hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've never nominated an AfD, don't think I know how, but hope someone will have a look at Tim Crutchfield. I've been asking the author to reference it for months. Not sure it's notable. Sandy 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I will put forward an AfD for you. TerriersFan 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - BTW users on here need to be aware of a new policy WP:NNOT that is being proposed. TerriersFan 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That doesn't apply here. A city councilperson doesn't mean much to a person in the next state, let alone on the other side of the world, if that is all the person is being entered for. --DarkAudit 00:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO.--John Lake 00:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless the city council does something of great notoriety or notability, city councilpersons fall under the "indiscriminate collection of information" clause. Captainktainer * Talk 00:11, 6 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Realty Corp.

Delete awful spam, triple-prodded.- CrazyRussian talk/email 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. nn. AdamBiswanger1 02:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam/nn IslaySolomon 02:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete They're getting some press coverage, but it's mostly from trade journals.[5] --Chaser T 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. SM247^{My Talk} 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam spam spam... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like the creator has the same name as one of the 'president' of the company, so add WP:VANITY. Deprodder didn't put quotes around the google search, so the 1.7 million hits is a little high. 900ish, with quotes, 300ish unique - many real estate ads and hits for another Sierra Realty in California. Kuru ^talk 04:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete spam —Pengo 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per all above. Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --AlexDW 17:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant vanity article; and the owners/officers of a business are "principals" not "principles." JChap 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant spam/vanity/advert -- Alias Flood 00:00, 4 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 turn the lights off er, delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American New Wave, Jon Jackson

Supposedly a new cinematic movement, led by a director with no IMDB credits I can find. The term googles well. The only problem is that critics use it to refer to a movement from decades ago. This article appears to be vanity and nonsense. Fan1967 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd say "vanity and free PR", my self. --Calton | Talk 02:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• and.....Cut per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• If I may follow Adam, that's a wrap. Get rid of this mess ASAP. -- Kicking222 02:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But I do give credit to anyone who can put the follwing three names in the same sentence: Kanye West, Wes Anderson, Leroy [sic] Jenkins. -- Kicking222 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't call us, We'll call you Danny Lilithborne 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Leave on the cutting room floor per above. SM247^{My Talk} 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:ORG. I sadly don't have a witty remark to go along with it. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above ([6] - "are you sure you make arthouse movies?") --IslaySolomon 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The American New Wave of cinema occurred in the 1970s and had nothing to do with the people described in this article. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and burn the negatives. I suspect it's a hoax. Kenneth Trufant? Sounds a bit too "Truffaut" (French New Wave director) to me. David L Rattigan 11:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Interestingly, he totally fails google search. There are several hits for an award-winning construction director for a Florida school district of that name [7], but zero involving film in any way. The other name's a little too common to thoroughly search, but I couldn't find anything relevant. Fan1967 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Why is there a black box over the woman's head in one of the photos? JChap 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sadly, I fear we'll never know. Fan1967 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Cordesat. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:58, 8 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 speedy delete, blanked by author. -- Kjkolb 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tough Love: Controversial Methods for the Rehabilitation of Problem Children

POV Essay

This is an essay with an agenda rather than encyclopedia article. There's no way it's ever going to come up in a search, particularly with such a bizarre title. I'd have suggested a merge except that a similar article already exists at World_Wide_Association_of_Specialty_Programs_and_Schools and has the same problems. I also suspect that there's copyright violation going on since the article self-referentially uses the phrase "this paper" twice. --IslaySolomon 02:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nom's reason is good enough. Also a little spammy.Bjones 02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 02:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all AdamBiswanger1 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I thought it was going to be about a book from the title, but rather, it is the book. Ace of Sevens 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all reasons here, articles like this trash our reputation. SM247^{My Talk}
• Speedy Delete, as A6 since the page does nothing but attack the subject ('WAASPS') and the author's name is "Wwasp swatter". Or G7 since the author blanked the page a minute ago. If not, obvious delete for the above stated reasons. Kuru ^talk 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, as {{db-blanked}} per CSD G7 (and CSD A1) - pages that are blanked by their author can be assumed to be a request for deletion by the author.--blue520 09:27, 3 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. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthias Mulvey

Ad for non-notable candidate (not officeholder); apparent vanity page was recreated after deletion; if he wins, I'll volunteer to write the article JChap 19:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• This nom also includes an identical article under the name Matt Mulvey. JChap 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/promotional article. -- Alias Flood 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as per nom. --MCB 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is unfair that Wikipedia, which is supposed to be impartial, and without point of view (POV as you guys write), gives advantage to incumbents by allowing the promotion of their bio, election websites etc. - and not other candidates who do not currently hold elected office. If Wikipedia covers elections, it should not do so without providing a balanced view of candidates. Otherwise, Wikipedia should not even cover the elections at all. Candidates can not be non-notable - that is just completely biased language; the mere fact that a candidate is running means that they have obtained hundreds or perhaps thousands of signatures to get on a ballot - beyond that, whether or not they are notable is up to the masses; it should be up to the readers of wikipedia and the voters of a district to decide if a person is non-notable. They are all equal and must be taken seriously before the election - that is what democracy is about. There is no reason why an incumbent who is already elected should get even more promotion via wikipedia, when someone running against them (who already has more odds stacked against them), can not post a page without it being deleted. To many people (at least tens of thousands of people every election), the current State Senator is "non-notable" and they vote against him. In 2000, over 38,000 people found the current State Senator non-notable and voted against him, and he only barely won with 52% of the popular vote. The man who ran against the incumbent was well known and had done a lot of major things for his community - is wikipedia to say that only incumbents are notable candidates? Over 38,000 people a few years ago would disagree. I can understand if wikipedia only had a page about the current government and did not make mention of candidates on any of its pages - however, wikipedia does cover state and local elections, and all candidates who make it to the ballot should be allowed an equal forum. As a 501C3 non-profit organization in Florida, Wikimedia Foundation may not engage in politics (by choosing one side, whether it is a party or a particular candidate or even just choosing to support incumbent POV only during an election, that is in itself engaging in politics) - Wikimedia Foundation could lose its tax-free status; if Wikipedia does not provide a balanced view - then it can not allow election information on its website (government information is OK, but when you cover elections, you need to show balanced representation of candidates). "Non-notable" is a point of view - Wikipedia is a service for people who want to find information freely - please let your readers decide for themselves how notable a candidate is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyMA (talk • contribs)

• Delete Both - per nom. Author probably needs to look at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections and WP:NOT.--DaveG12345 23:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless the following: Article is rewritten NPOV, and article makes a claim to notability. I believe strongly that credible challengers belong on Wikipedia, but this article gives me no reason to think that he's a credible challenger. If he is, write the article so I know that. JimmyMA's unsigned comment troubles me, and may violate WP:NLT; the fact that he may be right scares me even more. Captainktainer * Talk 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment JimmyMA's unsigned comment is ludicrous. The prohibition he refers to relates to US Internal Revenue Code Sec. 501(c)(3) organizations intervening in elections. Wikipedia contains a number of articles, some of which are on current and former holders of political offices. Some of the subjects of these articles may be currently running for office. The articles are not an attempt to intervene in the election. JChap 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - the intent was not to make any legal reference or to violate NLT; really, it is just a speculative comment (not "ludicrous" actually - current and former holders of political office are just that - however, it is when they are referred to as candidates as part of an election, that you must be careful to try your best to permit a fair climate for the other candidate information to be presented; this particular candidate in question is not "a current or former holder of political office" - yet his name appears on at least one wikipedia article/page) that someone may be able to make the case that a non profit organization which acts as an information source can not favor incumbent information during an election (even with the best intent to keep POV out of articles - it is hard to do that, because when you offer some information which then links to candidate campaign websites, the user clicks on it and sees almost 100% POV at that point)... Certainly, we are all regular users of Wikipedia or we wouldn't be here - Wikipedia is an important resource and I only bring this up so you can clarify your policies or find an amicable way to work with candidates to make the article work within your policies. The reason to bring this up is not to say that Wikipedia is outright wrong, but rather, that Wikipedia should modify its policies when it comes to such a fragile topic as equal rights to post information about CANDIDATES, not ELECTED OFFICIALS. It is just a matter of equality. The article can be rewritten, but it has been written 3 times and deleted 3 times... this time it was written much shorter and much more bland on purpose to try to fit your style requirements. At this point, we need your advice on how to make the article work - or in the style of wikipedia, it can be edited by your team of editors or the public anyway. It is offensive that you feel you can question if a candidate is credible - that clearly is a POV. I assure you, this candidate is a credible candidate, who regardless of whether or not he wins, will receive many thousands if not tens of thousands of votes (I am quite sure of this, given that he was required to collect 300 signatures to get on the ballot, yet he easily got over 600 in a few days; he is the top official in the state regarding building code, zoning and related rules, which means most people, elected officials and lawyers & judges involved in construction contracts or building/property management know him - which is a lot of people, and in addition he is a well known community activist with public service background) - he is a well-known candidate statewide whose first campaign fundraiser was so popular that it was standing room only. At his first speaking event, he was introduced, with full support of the party, personally by the Chairman of the Democratic State Party - the same one who introduces Ted Kennedy and John Kerry at the convention. This candidate was one of the first people to speak at this year's South Shore Democratic Caucus - he was introduced and spoke before Governor candidates Deval Patrick, Chris Gabrielli and Tom Reilly; do a search on BelowBoston.com for confirmation. He has received the outspoken and/or televised endorsement of a number of State Representatives and other officials, and has received campaign contributions. (are these elected officials wrong in publicly endorsing a candidate who may or may not be "credible" according to Wikipedia? I think these elected, popular State Reps would not put their reputation on the line for someone who is not "credible" - see the website to see a few endorsements) The contributors range from retired people living on a budget to people in business - regardless of their means, the fact that they contribute their hard-earned money tells me they believe he is credible. So, on what grounds do you say he is not credible? At what point does a candidate become credible - only if he/she wins? If that is the case, nobody new could ever be elected to office; experience does not come from thin air - all elected officials at one point earlier in their life were not yet elected officials. If all of these details were put into a wikipedia article, it would surely be deleted as a self-advertisement. So, please feel free to modify the article to suit your needs, or perhaps I can try to modify it a bit myself, however it is only fair that if nothing else, you should permit this candidate, like any other, to have a few sentences attached to any link on your website with his name. And Wikipedia DOES allow other candidates to post a link to their POV-infused campaign websites - so it would be good if you could allow that as well, only because it is fair. I understand that Wikipedia's mission is to provide quality factual content to its readers - we agree and want to do the same - all we ask is a few sentences be permitted to describe the background of the candidate, so people have a tiny little bit better idea of who he is - as a credible candidate, who is already confirmed to be on the ballot.

I have read the Wikipedia Candidates and Elections Page (and WP NOT) - the first time I followed these instructions, and made modifications, the page was deleted... Again, I will attempt to fix the page, but please also make edits yourself too if it doesn't work for you, rather than just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyMA (talk • contribs)

A lot more changes were made, hopefully, that will work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyMA (talk • contribs)

A few points:

1. You claim to be a regular user, yet your only edits are to the articles and to this AfD.
2. You seem to have confused the concepts of "credibility" and "notability."
3. You are confused on Wikipedia's policies regarding writing an article on oneself or the organization (or in this case candidate) one works for. Please read WP:AUTO. The article is a good example of the need for this policy.
4. The course of this discussion confirms my gut feeling about these things: A subject this desperate to get his article on Wikipedia should not have one here.

JChap 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone kindly point me in the direction of the election article that was written before this candidate article, per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, which states:

  As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, this guideline states that articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written. (my italics)

I cannot find it. Thanks. Also, I still do not feel the current article is "non-stub". --DaveG12345 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Please bear in mind that Candidates and elections is a proposed policy, and one that is still being written. As such, the prerequisite preceding article (according to the proposed policy) has not been written, as it has not been written for hundreds if not thousands of articles that currently offload the election onto the candidates' pages.Captainktainer * Talk 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That's probably why I couldn't find it then. I know it's a proposal, BTW. After all, guidelines are not set in stone either, and draft ones are cited in AfD every day, but we wouldn't get anywhere in here if we stuck to policies only, and went back to the first principles of WP:NOT every time we started a discussion. These things become adopted through use IMO. But thanks all the same. :-) FWIW, and in the absence of anything else that comes close, I believe Wikipedia:Candidates and elections is a very workable and very equitable policy proposal, so I tend to use it as a guideline when assessing suspected nn non-incumbent candidate AfDs like this. As do, I believe, many other editors. I find it tends to sort the genuinely notable from the plain old electioneering pretty effectively, all things considered. --DaveG12345 09:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• You could try Massachusetts Senate election, 2006 for a mention of this race. There is a Republican incumbent and Mulvey is the only listed Democratic challenger. Does this mean he will be the only Democrat on the ballot for this seat in the September primary election? The article did not say (one of the basic facts that was ommitted). JChap 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. This is one of the reasons why I believe Wikipedia:Candidates and elections works very well. It ensures omissions like this are unlikely to occur. When lots of work is done on one candidate, and not so much on the election as a whole, I confess I do get concerned. --DaveG12345 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - push this one under the Matt. BlueValour 03:20, 8 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keri Adams

Notability in question. Main point of notability for this person is that she is a weekend/substitute anchor for a local news program. --NMChico24 02:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete couldn't this have been speedied? TheRingess 02:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It always depends on the admin who reviews the speedy. I find that this kind of thing results in my speedy being overridden anyway (due to being "controversial"), and so I just send it straight here after removal of prod tag (usually by the page author, which is what happened in this case). --NMChico24 02:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You know, she is the only CTV anchor without a page, her co-anchor who also only hosts the 6 & 11 weekend news on CTV has a page, why can't she?—Preceding unsigned comment added by PlatypusBen (talk • contribs)
• Weak delete Normally I'm for all things Canadian broadcasting, and I've heard the name before, but let's face it, weekend/substitute local news anchors are not inherently notable. They tend to come and go pretty quickly, as her own resume indicates. Her being mentioned on the station page should suffice. Also, the aforementioned Mike Killeen does not have a page.— stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Substitute local news anchors are not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JChap 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lacking encyclopaedic notability. -- Alias Flood 00:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - still working her passgae. BlueValour 03:25, 8 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Reservoirs Nature Society (TeRNS)

Non-notable nature society. Although they do monitor a wildlife area, all 43 google hits are either directory listings or wikipedia. Hence, it lacks the requirement of being published about in independent media. -- Koffieyahoo 02:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Possible merge with Stoke_Newington#Liquid_assets? IslaySolomon 02:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge per above. -- Librarianofages 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete activities are not particularly notable, laudable though they are. SM247^{My Talk} 03:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable society. Fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a minor society, WP:ORG refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete admirable, but non-notable organization. JChap 20:20, 3 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 Keep. No attempt was made to justify deletion. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Launceston Christian School

Notability of the school not asserted -- Koffieyahoo 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'm one of those annoying "high schools have inherent notability" people. AdamBiswanger1 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(In response to the clarification requested on my talk page by Koffieyahoo) Well, in my opinion high schools are of borderline notability. Usually high schools have tens of thousands of graduates, each one spending hours and hours there for a four year period with countless memories during a time of transition in their lives. Some have more students than say Bryn Mawr College. Also, to try to delete every article on a high school is an unspeakably futile act. It just can't happen, and even if they were deleted they'd just pop right back up like weeds.

• Keep So am I. Ace of Sevens 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if only to be consistant. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools is trying "to write quality articles about schools around the world." IslaySolomon 02:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not a "schools are inherently notable" guy. In addition, since I was wondering if a private Christian school in Tasmania is an odd occurrance (in which case, my vote could be swayed), but I couldn't figure it out: a Google search shows 70 Christian parent controlled schools in all of Australia, but I searched "Christian Parent Controlled Schools of Tasmania", and the WP article is the only Google hit for said phrase. -- Kicking222 02:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure that this matters, but this school only has about 500 students in grades 1-12. ([8], page 5, overview section)--Chaser T 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Secondary schools (and the schools that incorporate them) are kept virtually ab initio and by virtue of their existence; notability in essence only helps and an absence of it really does not stop them. Whether this is good or bad is not for me to say, but I try to be pragmatic. Thus, because in spite of the cogent arguments for and against, very few AfDed schools are ever deleted, I will go with the majority. See Schoolwatch. SM247^{My Talk} 03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school. This is a recording: "WP:SCHOOL is not a policy, and 'all schools are notable' is a POV statement." --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete againt the rising tide. Coredesat is correct about the policy so we need to assess on other grounds. I've read a flyer about a parent controlled school that is < 20 years old with < 40 students ( clearly not notable ) and this school is not far advanced enough from that level. If we don't set a line somewhere on inclusion then every masonry box with the word School out the front will have it's own article. Fails to have any notable alumni, press coverage etc... - Peripitus (Talk) 04:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important entry, keep per AdamBiswanger1 -- Librarianofages 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep secondary schools are inherently notable IMO. --Pboyd04 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There have been 3 references to this in the Hobart Mercury so there is some verifable material available about this school. Capitalistroadster 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  I have no doubt the every school around for 20+ years has at least this number of local press mentions. Were the references more than school fete or building dedication announcements ? --Peripitus (Talk) 08:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps schools being around for 20+ years being mentioned in the media is the result of them being inherently notable. The media concentrates on what is notable after all. HighInBC 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The media concentrates often on what will fill the required space and is of local interest. If media mention alone governed notability then articles on local Pumpkin Fairs would survive AfD --Peripitus (Talk) 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone establishes WP:V this directory entry should be deleted no matter the outcome of this straw poll. Opinions on notability don't override policy. ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: They sure do if (a) there is no policy governing which level of school is notable or not, and (b) the overwhelming consensus is that secondary schools are notable. I think that's a crock myself, but the evidence is unmistakable that school deletionists are in a small minority. RGTraynor 08:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. If in the opinion of the closing adminsitrator verifiability has not been established, editors can cite WP:N (an essay) as much as they want, it still doesn't override policy. Your opinion is a popular one, but it reverts the actual hierarchy of rules. ~ trialsanderrors 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The school's website is linked, which verifies the school exists. I'm confused about why you're citing WP:V.--Chaser T 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Self-published sources (online and paper) is insightful. -- Koffieyahoo 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but what's the argument? That the website is a hoax? Strict application of WP:V seems misplaced here. Other than the usual self-promotion and hyperbole, the website satisfies the spirit of policy, if not the letter.--Chaser T 09:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article as it is now falls under WP:NOT a directory, also a policy. If there is verifiable encyclopedic material on the school, it passes policy and editors can discuss whether it passes their own interpretations of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Schools are generally notable.--Chaser T 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep allow for organic expansion —Pengo 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not in favor of deleting a verified article, and I think that teaching at secondary level is sufficient for notability. My own POV of course. Kevin 10:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, schools are usually non-notable, in my opinion, and private schools are even less notable on average. Beyond its existence, the article makes no claims to the school's importance or notability. Even basic information is missing, like the number of students and how long it has existed. Since it is a kindergarten to year 12 school, it is likely that it is very small. -- Kjkolb 11:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable school. --Roisterer 14:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This fight was lost a year ago. Rebecca
• Keep and expand. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Could provide useful reference material for future articles. --AlexDW 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per well established precedent seen at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. --Rob 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in this article demonstrates why it is encyclopedic. We're not building a phone book. WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, schools are not inherently notable (but an individual school can be notable), and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. Agent 86 19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's true enough that there are no binding decisions, but consistency in inclusion of similar articles seems a reasonable goal to strive for.--Chaser T 20:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: No more so than it does in real life, since stare decisis is a credo found nowhere in black-letter law. That being said, if you think that precedent is meaningless on Wikipedia, go ahead and file AfDs on various high schools, and see how far it gets you. RGTraynor 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm usually for keeping schools, but only 530 students in K-12? This one is microscopic and is not notable. JChap 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also think wikipedia can afford to see the high schools as notable. Also, since the prod tag the article has been improved. HighInBC 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment This article needs to be expanded alot, I am voting keep because I see effort to improve. If it has not improved in the future and voted for deletion again, I may think otherwise. HighInBC 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If people are looking for verification that the school does really exist, there are some Australian government pages that reference it: [9], [10], etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A few other decent ones, included because they might be useful for expansion, if someone's so inclined: [11] and [12]. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Dear school deleters: it's a lost cause. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the arguments provided in Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This and other verifiable secondary schools are notable enough to be included on a site which aims to provide the sum of all human knowledge. Silensor 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are important. Ramseystreet 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is an important and notable school. Carioca 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Schools are an important place to learn about what an encyclopedia is and is not -- MrDolomite 05:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also subscribe to the belief that "secondary schools have inherent notability" as AdamBishwanger1 put it hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, most schools are notable, as is this. bbx 15:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep schools are notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, althought I don't think that my vote is going to be the deciding one :P -- Chuq 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 04:56, 6 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HyperBac

This is probably advertising. Google gives a whopping 29 unique results, and a lot of those seem to be spamming forums, press releases, or submissions by the company rep. The news coverage on their website is little help. Chaser T 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Also fails WP:CORP's section on products.--Chaser T 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't consider this spam nor do I consider it advertising. This is a new and unique product from a small, independent Australian software vendor which is not hurting anyone. I can name about 100 other articles for deletions from multi-national, billion dollar software companies which are allowed to stay, why pick on these guys? Strong Keep for me. --Afuller77 04:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• user's first edit.--Chaser T 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all spam. SM247^{My Talk} 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn software/advertising --IslaySolomon 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't have much interest in "compressed disk based backup software for Oracle 9i and 10g", but I suspect that sort of thing does belong in an encyclopedia. After a bit of editing, it's no longer spam. Perhaps we could refocus the discussion about whether the subject is notable or not. --TruthbringerToronto 04:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, product released a month ago with no press or industry coverage that I could find other than company submitted blubs and spam. Their very simple site has exactly one press release and one "customer success" story. Claims are unverifiable; just seems to be another random backup solution for 9i/10g. Kuru ^talk 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't find any references to this company in an Australia New Zealand database. Couldn't find much in the way of verifiable material from reliable third party sources either for this software. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:SPAM --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not too spammish, has Utility —Pengo 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment using your own young proposed guideline as a reason for keeping an article is a bit bizarre... Fram 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How else is it going to catch on? (And another reason was given also) —Pengo 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The product seems to cover a valid topic area. Isn't specifically offensive in my case. Obviously a start up, but I suspect the topic is worth consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.187.132 (talk • contribs)

CommentThis was this users first edit Fram 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence that they pass WP:CORP Kevin 11:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if it didn't fail WP:SPAM, it would surely fail WP:CORP with flying colors (if colors can fly due to failure). -- Kicking222 11:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as it fails WP:CORP. --Charlesknight 12:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for its failure to muste WP:CORP. --Roisterer 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Fram 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for multiple reasons: WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, not verifiable by reliable (third party) sources; non-notable product. --MCB 06:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Compress & encryption of backups aren't unusual, and neither are database system add-on products. No evidence of popularity either. Fails all WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services. If there was an article for the company, it could have been merged there. --Zigger «º» 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rebecca 05:39, 8 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 & Redirect - CrazyRougeian talk/email 08:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great bluedini

Kool-Aid isn't Coca Cola. Individual flavors don't merit their own pages. This should be deleted and re-directed to the Kool-Aid page. Ace of Sevens 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'll put the flavor name in the Kool-Aid article if it already isn't there. Yanksox 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment it alreadly is there. No really notability seems to exist. Yanksox 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ^^ IslaySolomon 02:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no notability, already mentioned to the extent it can be under Kool-Aid SM247^{My Talk} 03:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable Kool-Aid flavor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete. Don't see this article growing. —Pengo 09:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kool-Aid. Mystache 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge The article itself is practically a nom for AfD: did not have a long life, introduced at the same time as other flavors, etc. JChap 20:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Kool-Aid.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It is a notable flavor for Kool-Aid, but it doesn't need it's own article. --Burgwerworldz 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unworthy of a place in an encyclopaedia. -- Alias Flood 00:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - what next; a page for each colour of a make of car? BTW not worthy of a redirect IMHO. BlueValour 03:30, 8 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corner fagging

Made-up neologism, fails WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Previously prod'ded by User:Matticus78 and removed by author without explanation. Danny Lilithborne 02:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No sources, no google hits. Mdwh 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, gamecruft neologism. SM247^{My Talk} 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above --IslaySolomon 03:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Personal neologism. AfD removed by author too. Kevin_b_er 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NEO, and admittedly so. --DarkAudit 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Since this is admittedly a neologism, can we speedy it or snow it?--Chaser T 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Richardcavell 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN neologism. Fireplace 04:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• save- what other requirments do i need ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth-vader (talk • contribs)

• Have a look at Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_on_neologisms.--Chaser T 04:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• weak delete I have heard this used, but since games of the genre have mostly died it's probably not worth keeping -- Librarianofages 04:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• save- The word fagging is a type of assault so corner fagging can be a corner assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.187.37 (talk • contribs)
  • Huh? Danny Lilithborne 06:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If anything, that makes this a double neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not only this, it's a word to word copy of the geocities site source. --ColourBurst 06:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• save-look again its not a word to word copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth-vader (talk • contribs)
  • Compare this to the Geocities source. Danny Lilithborne 06:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• save-its not a word to word copy as you can see —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth-vader (talk • contribs)
• Delete This term lacks notability, among other failed guidelines. GassyGuy 07:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  13:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --AlexDW 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JChap 20:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Chris (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism -- Alias Flood 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn notable neologism per all the above.--John Lake 03:44, 4 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 Redirect was performed by nom, and nomination was withdrawn. Yanksox 03:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historism

this page contains spam. Instead of deleting it, though, I would propose to have it redirect to Historicism, also see the discussion on Talk:Historicism Crix 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm sorry, I first nominated this article for deletion, then thought of the redirect, but when I tried to implement that, it appeared not to work, so I thought I had to go through with the AfD process. But now it seems that the redirect is working, so this whole thing seems to be moot.Crix 03:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So, are you withdrawing the nom? Yanksox 03:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. How do I do that? Crix 03:22, 3 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 Keep Eluchil404 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Phoebe

Vanity bio; all information taken from one webpage. Mo-Al 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She's a musician for hire. Some of the projects she has been a small part of may be notable but she is not --IslaySolomon 03:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She's done a lot of interestng stuff. --TruthbringerToronto 04:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this performer has done some interesting work.

//// Pacific PanDeist * 05:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, only 139 Google hits, and not all of them are relevant (a little more than two-thirds of them are). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless she's been featured on important albums by the artists she's worked with. And even then...BigHaz 07:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC in having not signed to a label, no charting releases and no news mentions --Peripitus (Talk) 07:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it fails WP:MUSIC. Or, more accurately, because the article doesn't establish how it meets WP:MUSIC. What work has she specifically done with those artists? Cleaned their homes? Recorded one sound that was sampled and used again and again? Co-wrote songs? Toured? It doesn't say, so we don't know what the relationship was and can't verify it. Isn't it a copyvio from [13] anyway? -- Mikeblas 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The copyvio was not in the original. Unfortunately, somebody put in a copy/paste, then other changes were added on top. So, it's a bit tricky to fix. --Rob 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC as a part of The Trans-Siberian Orchestra -- their album Christmas Eve and Other Stories has gone 2xPlatinum. Mystache 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mystache. Trans-Siberian Orchestra and its members are notable. --Pboyd04 16:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mystache, but clean up as current page is an ad and I have tagged it as such. JChap 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per WP:MUSIC and WP:AGF -- Alias Flood 00:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Please note, that copyvio was used to replace the content of the article, and then changes were made on top of that copyvio. I removed the copyvio, but haven't had time to put back any signficant points, that were added post-copyvio. --Rob 01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mystache and Thivierr/Rob. If I may make a suggestion, let's give people time to work on this (since the information is in flux) and, if there's any question, let's relist for AfD in a couple weeks or a month. I'd really like to halt AfD since active and productive work that meets policy standards is being done on the article. Captainktainer * Talk 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mystache. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not seeing any real achievements there, yet. BlueValour 03:35, 8 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 and Redirect - CrazyRougeian talk/email 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory

One "theory" from one Ann Coulter book; not inherently notable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, certainly does not merit its own article. IslaySolomon 03:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but I'm new and don't know how to express that in the proper way. It's not really a theory, but a fanciful concept to help in thinking about a controversial and scientifically difficult subject. Notable as a challenge to orthodoxy from an increasingly important author. Notable because quotable -- thousands will read or hear about the giant raccoon and not know what it means. (It's defined only once in the book, but referred to several times.) Better for them to find it here than to try to find it in a 301-page book that they have to own or borrow to read. At least as notable as many of the wonderful but obscure CD titles in the encyclopedia, or much of the way cool fantasy game stuff (which is also "fanciful," of course). At least as notable as Nox Bailey Shield or Libby Riddles, or any of the magical locations in the Harry Potter etc. stories, many of which have their own articles. Lou Sander 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If we created an article for every catchphrase she tries to create we'd have hundreds of them. Mention it in her article, but it doesn't deserve its own. It's already discussed in the article on the book. Fan1967 04:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The magical locations from Harry Potter are widely referenced. Ms. Coulter's "theory", well...isn't: [14][15][16]. --IslaySolomon 04:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ms. Coulter's book came out, um, 27 days ago. The article was created, well...a few hours ago. Google suggests the alternate spelling "Giant Raccoon Flatulence." [17] (Coulter would say "But you knew that.") [18]
• The "discussion" in the article consists of a single mention in a direct quotation from the book. Lou Sander 07:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• So, you're admitting upfront that this bit of nonsense is brand-new and no one's noticed it yet? That sounds like it's, hmm, non-notable. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Searching without the quotes brings up a lot of totally irrelevant entries, sites that have those three words, but not in order. Searching for "giant raccoon flatulence" brings up two blogs, but then, maybe "you knew that"? Fan1967 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable political theory from one person's book. Ann Coulter is notable, this theory isn't. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• If I could, I'd vote to delete it purely on the basis that it's the stupidest analogy I've heard all year, but fortunately I can urge delete on the grounds that it's an utterly non-notable stupid analogy. --Calton | Talk 08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question The tag on the article says it's being considered for deletion under Wikipedia's Deletion policy. I've searched that policy and found nothing about notability. Am I looking in the wrong place, does the policy need to be updated, is it the wrong tag, is there a non-neutral point of view in the article or somewhere close to it, or ???? Lou Sander 08:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply non-notable. -- GWO
• Keep, doesn't belong in any other article. Allow for organic expansion. —Pengo 09:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, although it could go into an article on logical fallacies under the categories of straw man and ridicule (actually a whole book on the subject could be made using examples from her and Michael Moore, the king of correlation implies causation and guilt by association). -- Kjkolb 10:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, add one sentence to Ann Coulter article. NawlinWiki 12:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it's just the standard argument from incredulity dressed up - does not require and does not match the requirements for it's article. --Charlesknight 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ann Coulter Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Not an impossible search term, given Ms Coulter's popularity. Tevildo 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ann Coulter. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- If we're going to merge this (and I must say there doesn't appear to be much usable prose in the article) then perhaps we should merge to Godless: The Church of Liberalism, the book from which the phrase comes, instead? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything worthwhile to add from this article that's not already covered there. Fan1967 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, good idea. I think we need to keep some sort of reference to the phrase, but I agree that it doesn't deserve its own article. Tevildo 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Once this has had its full time for comment, and assuming the trend to delete continues, the Raccoon should go to the article on the book, and I'll be glad to move it. Once there, it will be subject to twisting and distortion by those who see a commercial for whacko "creation science" in every Coulter word. While it's in its own article, it's hard for them to do that, since there aren't any "creation science" quotes to illegitimately tie it to. It's a fanciful/critical/controversial analogy of Darwinism, not a commercial for "creation science." Not a "political theory," either. Lou Sander 17:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Possibly it could be merged with Flying Spaghetti Monster, since it seems to be a broadly similar theory with some weird POV crap attached. Artw 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I have a serious question about the above comment. The Raccoon quote is parsed and its meaning is carefully explained. It illustrates the position of an important author about the origins of life on earth. Yet people call it "POV." And dismiss it on that account. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I see quite a lot of "I don't agree with it, so it's POV." Isn't the notion of "POV" that the editors should keep their points of view out of the articles? And isn't the point of that that the points of view of the people covered by the articles get a fair and unbiased hearing? Lou Sander 23:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Seriously, it's not her position about the origins of life on earth. It's a catchphrase she made up to ridicule others' opinions. There's a big difference. The main point, though, is that it doesn't seem to be a particular method of ridicule that's caught on, even with the creationist movement in general. It's worth a mention as part of the article on her book, but doesn't seem to have achieved any notoriety separate from it. Fan1967 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Seriously, stipulating all that you've said, what about point of view? Lou Sander 15:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Personally, IMNSHO, I don't see POV as being relevant here. Clearly, POV is a problem with anything about this person, but on this particular issue, I think the only relevant argument is that it's a phrase that nobody's picked up on, that hasn't spread, and doesn't deserve an article. (I don't think any analogy to FSM holds up either.) Fan1967 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the "allow for organic expansion" argument, and the other "keeps", make the assumption that this "theory" will become notable in the future and a place should be set aside for it until then. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --IslaySolomon 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've seen that "allow for organic expansion" comment in other AfD's, and it seems to always mean "Keep this; it may become notable someday." Fan1967 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Artw 19:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Giant raccoon as well. Artw 05:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It is a passage in a book and the "theory" itself has not received wide coverage. JChap 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Coulter article, if the person merging the material can somehow work it into the article without it being too jarring.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not particularly important, even within the context of the book. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable -- 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs)
• Strong Delete (even merging and redirecting would be too much). Quite apart from the fact that Coulter's point is utterly uninspired (I'm sure that the flat-earthers had some wittier responses to Darwin in the 19th century), it is also totally obscure. A Google search for "giant raccoon" and "Coulter" delivers 19 results, out of which 5 are being displayed. That's pretty poor for an internet meme, which this "theory" is apparently designed to become. However, I'm sure it will soar up in no time if, and only if, it is allowed to stay here, due to Google's favourable weighting of terms with Wikipedia articles. --Thorsten1 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to Godless: The Church of Liberalism; there are no multiple non-trivial sources for this theory, so it fails verifiability requirements. nn. Ziggurat 23:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not justify its own article. At best it merits a line in her bio article, or the book it was taken from. No merge/redirect. - Motor (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Godless (book). It's not nearly as interesting or relevant as the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. --Wing Nut 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. FeloniousMonk 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, it belongs in the article about the book. For it to deserve its own article it should be a widely discussed concept. This is not. Gamaliel 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this isn't encyclopaedic content, and I don't see how it can become encyclopaedic. Guettarda 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced so at present it is OR. BlueValour 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is now the beginning of an intense debate over Wikipedia policy. See Controversial Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.30.75 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: That "news" site allows contributions from anyone. Which is of course a crazy philosophy! Such a thing would never work! ;-) But seriously, it fails WP:RS by a long shot and the article was created just a few hours ago, quite possibly by someone involved in this very debate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP, for God's sake, KEEP! The raccoon is a poor, dumb animal, whose usual claim to fame is being run over on the highways of America. Now that a giant one has a notable "theory," even if it's couched in terms of a fanciful free-verse epigram, and now that he has been credited by a noted author with being the source of the flatulence that is in turn the source of all life on earth, the speciesists want to banish it from a free forum of ideas. This is animal cruelty that even Ann Coulter at her worst wouldn't even contemplate. O tempus, O mores, O Wikipedia. Lou Sander 02:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (In tears, because the judgment of men will prevail. Good bye, Big Rac, it's been a pleasure to know ya.)
  • Note, user already voted above. (Yes, I thought this one was funnier! No, I'm not trying to spoil the humor :-) Just making the closing admin's work easier.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:20, 9 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 no consensus, and I also hate the fact that Magic players get coverage. They should get a life. :) - CrazyRougeian talk/email 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daigo Umehara

A big name in the Street Fighter community does not equal notability. Danny Lilithborne 03:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Nowadays he is known worldwide, thanks to the Evo tournament video and others. The video is watched even by people who doesn't have much knowledge about the game, due to this dramatic characteristic. A well research would evidence that others countries makes his fame also. Examples are communities in Orkut.com dedicated to him: http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=8410635.This should be considered.
• Keep - He is not known here except in the hardcore gaming community. He is VERY known in Japan. He doesn't get coverage in the States? Might as well remove all entries about all singers that don't sing in english while you're at it. I'm telling you he means a lot to the Japanese gaming community, they've made Ascii Arts of him on 2chan. DenkouNova 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think that he is in fact notable. He's an international champion of what he does. International champion surfers and Magic card players are in here, so why not this guy too? Richardcavell 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Surfers get coverage. Magic card players (as much as it pains people to admit) also get coverage. Street Fighter players do not. Even at the height of SF's popularity, they never got any notable coverage. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Magic card players' coverage is mostly limited to promotional material, community sites, and David Williams for his poker playing. --ColourBurst 02:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He may be an international champion, but only at something incredibly obscure and specific. Someone like Fatal1ty is notable because he achieved recognition in the mainstream media and financial success through sponsorship. --IslaySolomon 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Richardcavell. I think it needs more sourcing rather than deletion. It's very likely he received sponsorships and other notable news coverage within Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Nihonjoe. Needs sourcing. - Wickning1 04:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Daigo is equally notable as Jonathan Wendel in the gaming community. Also, Daigo is notable in Japan even among the general gamer, not just SF players and has been featured on a DVD. Also he has a imdb profile and is written in gamespot. ^{[1] [2]}

(7/3/2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

• Comment That IMDB entry is for "Bang the Machine", an out-of-print documentary about the SF scene. I was the one who submitted the info on the players that appeared in that movie; otherwise he wouldn't have an IMDB profile, which is all kinds of ironic. And the GameSpot "article" is just rankings for EVO in 2003. If your claims about him being known in Japanese circles is true, then it should be rewritten with verifiable sources as such, and "I know a Japanese guy who totally knows Daigo" doesn't count. Danny Lilithborne 06:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Seems of infinitesimal notability to me. Delete. -- Hoary 07:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Against Better Judgement Keep - I'm opposed to having articles on Magic champions but this guy is more notable than a whole raft of minor gaming persons that I am in the minority on wanting to remove. MLA 08:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor gaming celeb. -- GWO
• Delete as non-notable. The Magic card game players should go too, but that's another AfD. -- Kjkolb 10:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not a player of a traditional sport, but a "champion" fighter all the same, keep. —Pengo 10:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article on an individual video-game player. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep more notable then any of these "Category:Magic:_The_Gathering_players". The point is that people could randomly want to find information on who the best player in SF is, since the game has been played by everyone. It is the same with Magic. People who vote against have so far lacked an argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by killerhun00 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment "People might randomly want to find information" is hardly a convincing argument. Danny Lilithborne 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What is Wikipedia for if not for finding information? Your counter-argument has no value at all. DenkouNova 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It's not for random finding of information, to be sure, otherwise we wouldn't have Articles for Deletion proceedings. Danny Lilithborne 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Um...the last time I checked AfD are because people have A. Fake articles, B. Articles that are unverifiable C. Article of zero notablilty. Much of the information on Wikipedia is found randomly, mainly through the well-organized link process (ie hyperlink in a different article, and lists) this is what make wikipedia great. In fact this is what most people do. For example lets say a person interested in the "History of SF" accidently stumbles upon "Daigo Umehara" in the Street Fighter article. If you are stating that this is not random, or the person has no interest in "The Best Player in SF" then I can say with 100% certainty that you have no idea what you are talking about. SF has a large enough following of causal players that people not searching for the best SF player or even the SF tournament scene would be interested in reading about Daigo. Lets take another example: The other day I "randomly" stumbled upon Kardashev scale. I came across this while reading "Energy economics" which linked through the category to Kardashev scale. Now that was completely random, I also found Kardashev scale to be one of the most interesting reads in my life. Therefore, Lilithborne, you are done stop talking. 71.248.218.111 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
          • This is the last comment I'm going to make regarding this, because you obviously are not willing to listen to reason. The majority of articles that go through the AfD process are biographies of people considered not notable. This is just another one of them. I played SF for a long, long time and I'm pretty sure I know more about Daigo than you do. (A-Guy, anyone?) However, unlike poker, whose players have widespread popularity, SF remains, as MCB eloquently put it, an insular gaming community that rejects "newbies", ironically when they need new blood the most. "History of SF" on Wikipedia should be about the game in and of itself; the tournaments held, for the most part, failed to influence its evolution in any significant way. Now, as someone who has been playing SF seriously for about seven years, rest assured that you, like many other fanatics before you, greatly overestimate the influence of SF on society. So, since reason's lost on you, I'll leave it at this: Daigo Umehara is not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry and that, my friend, is that. What happens after this point is not up to you or me, but the admins. Danny Lilithborne 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I would like you to know that I am not part of the SF community. I rarely play SF and see it nothing more than a causal game. I found this article to be notable and interesting. I stumbled upon this article through the category, japanese people. Therefore if I find this article to be notable, it probably is, since I do not belong in the interest group. 71.248.218.111 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per above --AlexDW 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable biography, unknown outside a small and insular gaming community. --MCB 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just hear about Daigo through Wikipedia. I am not a part of the SF scene, and found this article to be very interesting. This person seems notable. 204.52.215.13 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A legend in his community and someone that people who read about street fighter should hear about. He is an interesting side note in SF history. -Kbalch.
• Keep I'm going to regret this but I am going to do serious damage to my deletionist reputation by voting keep. I think that this kid is notable in his field and I think that WP should be a broad enough church to find a place for guys like him. BlueValour 03:52, 8 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 of all articles by Jzg. Yanksox 20:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Portland

Also nominated are Davis Tellman and Lorne Halladay. To put it simply this is a bizzarre case. I originally wondered upon the Portland article when doing New page patrol and asked for sources and was supplied such. When I went to a library near where I worked I actually stumbled upon one of the sources and checked out the book out of curiousity. When I read the book (three times for good measure) I found no mention of these subjects. Confused, I picked the other source and, again, nothing popped up. Concerned, I e-mailed both the Chicago Historical Society and the Chicago Photographic Collectors Society, asking about all three subjects and the Chicago Photographic Society. The CPCS Vice President responding stating, he had no idea whom the people were and that he had never heard of the Chicago Photographic Society, stating that the CPCS (which the article claims was the Chicago Photographic Society), was formed in 1971. After my e-mail with the Chicago Historical Society, I had a phone conversation with them that echoed the same concerns. It appears as far as I can tell, these subjects are ficitious and a hoax. Delete If any information is needed, I will supply it. Yanksox 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. You'd also think a supposedly pioneering group as the "Chicago Photographic Society" would show up in Google Books or Google Scholar at least ONCE, but no. Kudos to Yanksox for research above and beyond the call of duty, by the way. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above . Kudos on your thorough research. Also, none of the articles state just what it was that made these three notable (other than perhaps their bizarre deaths). Photography was well established by the 1880s and they'd have to have done more than just take photographs to be notable. --IslaySolomon 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Excellent work on the research checking by Yanksox. Hoaxer should be formally castigated Bwithh 04:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as per Yanksox, unless the author can provide verified sources for the articles.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all with my gratitude to Mr. Y. Sox for his awesome dedication to this project. Barnstar him immediately! - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I second. a barnstar is certainly in order Bwithh 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete research is awesome and should be kept on record! Is there anywhere for such things? Tyrenius 06:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Alert I've just been checking all 3 articles and the editors who started and contributed to them, as well as the other edits of those editors. It seems on first inspection that there are a range of sockpuppets all making these fictitious articles about cultural figures, e.g. Satchel Cohen. I've got to sign off, but I wondered if anyone can look into this further? Tyrenius 06:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Satchel Cohen now has a page of quotations from his poems on Wikiquote, so if there are pranksters at work, they're getting busy. BigHaz 07:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's right - put there by the same editors. It's clever stuff. But google returns results only on these entries. Tyrenius 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: here is a list of all of the possible hoaxes. -- Kjkolb 10:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Barbarossa's Last Words
  • Christian Portland
  • Davis Tellman
  • Hermann Rudiger
  • Kenneth Marlowe
  • Lorne Halladay
  • Shadedpixel.net - it's not notable, but a real photo blog (front page might be broken, but see http://www.shadedpixel.net/index.php?x=browse for more photos) --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Winter Peace
• Comment: and here is a list of all of the possible hoaxers and sockpuppets. -- Kjkolb 10:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Becbec3
  • User:Dunnbass
  • User:Gardinni
  • User:Hansgw
  • User:MartiniDrinker100
  • User:Mitchelmac
  • User:Verbatim24

There's even more now. See User:Tyrenius/Satchel Cohen hoaxer --Tyrenius 10:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thank you all for the kind words. I am very glad to see Tyrenius's and Kjkolb's work, I was suspecting something when I was looking through their conversations and when both of them confronted me on Portland's talk page. These appear to be complicated and thought out hoax articles. Yanksox 11:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope Yanksox won't mind if I just clarify any ambiguity and say that the confrontation on Portland's talk page was with two of the suspect sockpuppets, not with Tyrenius and Kjkolb! Tyrenius 12:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Yanksox, Tyrenius and Kjkolb for going above and beyond the call of Wikipedia duty for exposing the Satchel Cohen hoaxer.  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete vandalism (hoax). Just zis Guy you know? 15:16, 3 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wahooing

Fannish and irrelevant. The Tucker Max board did not invent the concept; the term Wahooing is not used at all outside of the Max board and a few splinter boards. No notable sources. Either delete or re-direct to either cyberterrorism, cyber-bullying or cyberstalking. Nota bene: the practice is also highly illegal as outlined in the article. Kerwash 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a proto/neologism, WP:NEO refers. Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete protologism of net kids. Danny Lilithborne 06:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AlexDW 17:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Jimjones5 21:32, 4 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilltop festival

Seems like promotional material for non notable festival in slovakia. No references given. Very pov.Delete TheRingess 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)}

• Delete Per nom. They admit in the article it's an "isolated microcosm". --Kerwash 04:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable organization. Less than 100 unique google hits, and none of any prominence. Fireplace 04:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and article author as cited above. Tyrenius 06:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be notable enough. Promotional sounding, but not irrecoverable. —Pengo 10:55, 3 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kumar (drag queen)

This was initially speedy-tagged by a fellow new page patroller, John Lake. I removed that and he proposed deletion as non-notable, so I'm taking it to AfD on his behalf. Chaser T 04:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Even for a small country like Singapore, to be the leading drag performer is notable enough to keep, imho. I found websites (only a few in English) that confirm this [19] [20], though I acknowledge that both have reliability issues.--Chaser T 04:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Chaser. If she were in New York, it'd be borderline non-notable, but in Singapore it's a different story. Plenty of google presence. Fireplace 04:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I tagged it as a speedy then as a prod simply because I found no references in google. I read the references now provided and the second one of the above does call Kumar (drag queen) the most notable one in Singapore and that is notable enough for me. Since have checked with Webcrawler and found [21] that also calls this person the most notable drag queen there.--John Lake 04:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, John. Maybe I should have shown you what I'd found first. Since this is an apparent quasi- withdrawal by nominator I'd request closure.--Chaser T 04:49, 3 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PixelAddiction

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.

• Delete spam --IslaySolomon 04:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• "Keep' It sounds like an interesting and useful site. A bit of editing (assuming the article is kept) would fix the NPOV problems. --TruthbringerToronto 04:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not really much here but POV. Don't see enough notability that it could have a decent npov article. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Page creator has a history of spamming to this site. Fireplace 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. Block the creator for spamming the website. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Biased advertising for a non-notable website, WP:WEB, WP:SPAM & WP:NPOV all refer.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 06:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP if not a Speedy Keep. I'm sorry, but have you even looked at this article? Clearly, this article is notable, NPOV, and an asset to our encyclopedia. It definitely needs expansion, but this draft is a fine start. 172.164.113.159 15:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This IP's only contributions are to this AfD and, an inquiry into what is currently in his/her lower intestinal orifice. ... discospinster _talk 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: OK, so what did you find out, then? 71.122.250.178 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spam, not notable --AlexDW 17:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Danny Lilithborne ... discospinster _talk 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. *~Daniel~* 21:32, 3 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. Homey 05:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Party International

delete as non-notable. no independent confirmation that this group even exists fullsome prison 04:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can find a lot of parties all over the world using this name or something like it. I can't find any evidence of a notable international (or US) movement affiliated with the Ontario party. Fan1967 04:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the content apparently comes from one of the founding members. Most of the google presence originates from the organization itself. Fireplace 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and extremely difficult to verify. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, people involved appear to be notable. E.g. Paul McKeever and his party is mentioned on Whitby—Ajax. —Pengo 10:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, he received 198 votes, 0.6% of all ballots cast, in the by-election. So merge this article with Paul McKeever, that McKeever may be (barely) notable enough for an article doesn't mean everything he does merits its own article. fullsome prison 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Wrong article. We already have an article on Freedom Party of Ontario, McKeever's party, which hasn't been challenged. This AfD is for the alleged international party. Can you find any indications of the party outside of Canada? Fan1967 14:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not verified as an active, real party. They can come back if they find sources in the future. BlueValour 03:56, 8 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large_Animal_Games

Advertisement Cheese Sandwich 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unapologetic spam for nn software company --IslaySolomon 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Grumble. It's not an advertisement any longer. --TruthbringerToronto 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable organization. The page creator is also behind this, which should probably go too. Fireplace 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Still Delete. You can squeeze every last drop of bias out of the article it's still a non-notable company --IslaySolomon 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims of notability for company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting WP:CORP. [One] news article but nothing else to lend the company significance --Peripitus (Talk) 07:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, advertising cruft has been removed.—Pengo 11:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, it's not advertising. Are they even remotely notable? -- Kicking222 11:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just another maker of web games, like the thousands of others out there. -- Kicking222 11:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting WP:CORP. BlueValour 03:57, 8 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NorCal Tournament

There is absolutely no way this passes muster with WP:NN, especially since NorCal Tournament can refer to any number of things. I would speedy this if I could, but I'm pretty sure if I prod'ded it, it would get removed, so I'm taking it here. Danny Lilithborne 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete That an account of some kids playing Nintendo in a cheap hotel found its way onto wikipedia is quite scary. --IslaySolomon 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not even close to notable. Confusing article name. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have been following the smash community on smashboards for sometime and have concluded that this is a small to medium tournament as far as smash goes. OC and Melee-fc are much larger tournaments. In fact FC even received News coverage. I have no idea why this NorCal article is even here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom; come to that, how come nom is filing out of bias when it comes to the Melee-FC AfD, but you agree with him when he files on your competitor tournament as well? RGTraynor 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"per nom; come to that, how come nom is filing out of bias when it comes to the Melee-FC AfD, but you agree with him when he files on your competitor tournament as well?"

There was a large argument I had with Danny Lilithborne which I removed because of irrelevance toward the discussion of Daigo Umehara. He then sent me a personal PM, which he stated that he had a bias toward me and then found another article which I wrote, and AfD without research of notablilty. His tagging of Melee FC was completely bias. He also falsified information to back his point of view. He however, is correct in tagging the NorCal Tournament. The reason why I recommend this article for deletion is because it is not even notable in the smash community. Therefore the chances of someone else out of the community being interested is slim to none. Melee FC however is the largest tournament to date, not only gaining television publicity, but also captures the interest of causal smash players and gamers. (There are over 6 million causal smash players) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Non-notable computer game tournament between members of a non-notable group.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per IslaySolomon. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MELEE-FC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; minor regional gaming tournament, unknown outside a small gaming community. --MCB 06:56, 4 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marion2u

Non-notable fansite. Its alexa rank is only 867,544. No indiciation of significant coverage by independent sources, or of meeting any other facet of WP:WEB. As such, I am recommending deletion. --Hetar 05:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A gloss on the construction of a non-notable fan website; WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything suitable (i.e. a short paragraph) with Marion Ravn, who apparently said it's her best fansite. Tyrenius 06:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Already gets a link on the Marion Ravn page and that's all it deserves. --IslaySolomon 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Islay. RGTraynor 08:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above --AlexDW 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - who writes this stuff? Pass me a paper bag ... TerriersFan 02:27, 4 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 speedy delete as an attack page. -- Kjkolb 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter March Syndrome

Apparently not notable, original research (having NO Google! hits), or a simple hoax. Best deleted OMEN 05:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Of course it's a hoax, it's a page about drunken students stealing road signs. --IslaySolomon 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom and IslaySolomon. Kalani ^[talk] 05:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per nom nn notable, original research.--John Lake 05:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spoof. Tyrenius 05:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{hoax}} article, probably to mock the aforesaid Peter March's weekend activities.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete doesn't qualify for speedy, sadly enough. Danny Lilithborne 06:54, 3 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seastead

Deletion as libertarian neologism with little impact on discourse (delete under WP:NEO). Fewer than 1,000 hits on google[22] (with the bulk being from blog posts and chat forums etc..) Zero relevant hits on Google Scholar[23], indicating term is not being used in serious academic discussion. A Google Books search brings up "Seastead" as a neologism coined in the late 1960s to describe the possibility of a US federal government initiative to encourage the US States to distribute sea resource rights to entrepreneurs more effectively (a plan which I'm sure the libertarians would hate)[24]. This 1960s government neologism doesn't seem to have caught on, which is why we don't even have underwater sea colonies today, never mind cities on the moon. The Books search also suggests "Seasteading" as a slang term used to describe self-sufficient sailing (sort of like Kevin Costner in Waterworld but without the gills). The sailing term seems to date back to the 1970s[25]( see the reader comments on amazon). A Factiva multi-decade search of newspapers and magazines only brought up a few hits, which were all related to the 1970s sailing movement or to people with Seastead as a surname. Perhaps the libertarian neologism will became more influential in the future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Possibly an article about Seasteading - the self-sufficient yachting lark - is in order, but this would be best filed under Seasteading which is currently just a redirect to the afd article. Note that Patri Friedman, one of the coiners of the libertarian neologism is currently under afd nomination scrutiny.Bwithh 05:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per thorough and impressive research by nom. Tyrenius 05:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Google search for Seastead minus Friedman creates 43 ca. 500 hits. ~ trialsanderrors 05:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how you do it! I was using the apparently buggy Advanced Search page Bwithh 06:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure. Google seems to recognize OR as a Boolean term, I'm now thinking it might recognize NOT as a search term. Will investigate. ~ trialsanderrors 06:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, it looks like Google considers NOT a search term per the results. I get roughly 500 hits using minuses, but also sone very odd aberrations. In any case, better stick to the much better researched nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 06:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well-researched nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. More great detective work on the AfD page.--IslaySolomon 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Borrar/Delete either or :-) NOVO-REI 06:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neo and barnstar the nom. Good work! --DarkAudit 14:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and an anti-Barnstar for Google. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Good work nom, I was prepared to let this go before reading that. SM247^{My Talk} 04:54, 7 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 The JPS^{talk to me} 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MELEE-FC

Gamecrufty article about an international Super Smash Bros. Melee tournament that claims notability on the basis of having had a whopping 186 entrants; the article says it's the most entrants in a tournament "of its kind", which is pretty easy seeing as there's no other SSBM tourneys to compete with it. As it stands, it reads like an advertisement for the next tournament. I'm voting to just get rid of it. Danny Lilithborne 06:37, 3 July 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}}

• Keep this tournament has establish notability. It will be rewritten. Sources also have been cited of its reach beyond just that of smash. Also there is a citation about Newscasters interviewing players and the tournament scene. Please read the entire article. Also if you did any research you would note that smash has the largest tournament community. Therefore there are many tournaments to compete with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)
  • The entire article is 70% self-promotion and 20% "oh wow we were on the news once". And I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. I am very familiar with how popular a tournament game SSBM is. Read what I said over again. Danny Lilithborne 07:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ryulong 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as no more notable and important that the local Church Fete. --Peripitus (Talk) 07:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom GassyGuy 08:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• A few notes. This initial reason for recommended deletion was based on a bias (negative personal feelings) toward the creator of the page. Reading through this article provides both citations and reports of the notablilty of this tournament. To view an unnotable tournament see NorCal Tournament. Melee FC has been portray by the media, and thus gone beyond that of interest community. Therefore, not only having a massive impact on the Smash community, but also is known outside of interest group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom ... who, by the bye, is an AfD regular; please assume good faith. That being said, there seem to be plenty of us quite unconvinced of this small gaming tournament's notability, as well as the article's unsourced assertions of magazine coverage and size, and turned off by the cut-and-paste from a flyer. I found the assertion of an "international" tournament, based on the one guy showing up from England, especially piquant. RGTraynor 08:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, non-notable video game tournament. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My college has SSBM tournaments, too. I'm not writing articles about those. -- Kicking222 11:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Delete. If we're to start including every event where 100 people show up, then we're going to need articles about most yard sales, open houses, kids' lemonade stands, etc. I think not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Those familiar with the Smashboards/Smash Brothers tournament community know that this has been the most competitive and diverse Smash tournament for the last two years, even compared with the professional leagues, therefore "non-notable" is not a reason to delete. It is a meaningful part of the Smash tournament scene's culture, and not just a tournament at some college or in someone's backyard, but held and supported by professional gamers who regularly compete in professional tournaments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.212.255 (talk • contribs)

• Reasons for keeping. Please note that World Series of Poker and World Poker Tour are tournaments, that though received large publicity, only applies to that interest group therefore is technically not notable. Because of publicity WSOP has become notable. What makes Melee FC notable is that if someone not apart of the tournament community is interested in finding out what the largest tournament in Smash is, they could search for it on wikipedia. Smash has sold over 6 million copies and as a result the interest group is much larger than just that of the tournament players, therefore people would be interested. This article is an interesting read for any gamer, smash related or not. Both poker and smash has received Television publicity. Also, this tournament has larger notablilty than many Magic: The Gathering players, which each have their own article. Also this article has notability because it is the most notability aspect of a certain interest group. The pinnacle of all interest groups already have, or deserve an article on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable as the apex of tournaments in smash. More notable then Magic: The Gathering players. Article is none bias and has notability. Known outside of interest group. killerhun00
• Delete - This tournament really isn't that big. Comparing it to WSOP is nonsense. Wickethewok 14:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• This tournament really isn't that big. Comparing it to WSOP is nonsense., Correct, but it follows the same concept. Therefore deletion would violated wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

• I have no idea where you came up with "deletion would violated wikipedia rules". What? I don't suppose we can get an early close on this...? Wickethewok 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Article has been featured in Nintendo Power. This markes the only ameteur tournament to do so. The publicity is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a list of everything that ever appeared in print anywhere. -- GWO
• Please state why this lacks notability. The apex of ever interest group has an article. This is an apex of the Smash Community.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)
• Delete this is not the WSOP and Nintendo Power isn't exactly serious media. --Pboyd04 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It lacks notability because it has only been mentioned in Nintendo Power, the official magazine for all things Nintendo, and the homepage that organizes the tournament. World Series of Poker is televised on a national network. Magic the Gathering has a larger fanbase than SSBM, as the Gamecube was not very popular among the PS2 and the X-Box. If I were to hold a SSBM tournament at UM, I could probably gather upwards of 100 participants, too, and it could also be determined as international, because there would be plenty of participants who go to my university and are from other countries (India, Tanzania, Argentina, Cuba, etc.), but that wouldn't mean it requires international notability on Wikipedia. Ryulong 19:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe you arent reading everything, NBC news team also broadcasted it on the 6 clock news. Also if you host a tournament it will not gather anything international. Melee FC is the apex of smash tournament and is noted as the largest tournament out come for a single fighting game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

• Okay, it says that the local NBC station for the area, WNDU-TV, broadcast a news report on the tournament. It's not like NBC Nightly News or Dateline NBC reported on it (which it would then be notable, because a news program broadcast nationally would have mentioned it). MELEE-FC is not as notable as (for an example) QuakeCon which gathers several thousand participants in a LAN Party, during which they play multiplayer first person shooters against each other (Quake III Arena). Ryulong 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Also note that I said fighting games. Fighting games in general do not bring even over a hundred participants. Evo and can bring around 400 because it host seven games. FC3 however, was single handly able to bring 186 participants. There will be even larger tournaments this summer, however they have not yet occured. Also FC is an annual tournament therefore people interested in going and expect one every year. As far as fighting games go Melee FC has brought the largest crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

• Uh, there were over 200 entrants in the MvC2 tournament at EVO in 2004. (Which, mind you, is STILL not notable, which makes this debate even more of a joke.) Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• First, sign your comments with ~~~~, even if you are an IP editor. Second, just because it is a fighting game that got nearly 200 players in it's third year doesn't make it any more notable than if it was a Tekken tournament that got 400 participants and got mentioned on the local CBS network in Duluth, Minnesota. Ryulong 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please site the source where a tekken tournament received 400 players, as far as im concern that has never happened[26] If it has happened, then I for one would be interested in reading a wikipedia article about it. I am not a part of the tekken interest group. Therefore that article would be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.218.111 (talk • contribs)

• It hasn't to the best of my knowledge, I'm just using it as an example of something that would also be not notable, and a fighting game tournament. (Also, that's not what I meant when I said to sign your comments with ~~~~. Just type four tildes and it'll show up.) Ryulong 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Sheesh, I got interviewed by both the local NBC and the local ABC nightly news teams, at different times yet. (I was the guy at the local pro hockey games who swung a referee-on-a-noose.) That sure doesn't make me notable. RGTraynor 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I think the mentioning of MELEE-FC in the SSBM article is plenty. This article is not very interesting or informative to anyone who does not attend the tournaments, and the person who wrote the article even said that he doesn't care. I've been to both FCs and I'll be at the next one, by the way. AOB 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'm somewhat sick of this notability thing. Nintendo power and local news count as reliable sources, it's just that this article doesn't back up its claims with those sources. I don't think we should compare this to WSOP, but if this is the most important/successful tournament for this game, I think that's a reason we can include it. However, the article is full of inside information that only fans would know: this is not verifiable info and needs to be removed. Mangojuice^talk 13:11, 5 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 speedy delete. The article is part non-notable band, part transparent hoax and part patent nonsense (the last part). -- Kjkolb 09:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Rodriguez

Contested speedy, db-band. You can read their arguments on the talk page. A bunch of high school kids from Nebraska with a myspace page. Fan1967 06:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense, though you might want to preserve that talk page. It's always cute when the kids threaten to "report" people. Danny Lilithborne 06:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete the page claims they've been on 6 million tours and other nonsense. The creator has offered no evidence of these two supposed albums, but just keeps threatening to report the nominator (apparently for being civil and following policy).--Chaser T 06:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-G1 (patent nonsense) or CSD-A7 (no assertion of notability). It seems to be tagged for A7, but if that tag goes away, tag it with {{db-nonsense}}. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G1 as patent nonsense. Even by the standards of Myspace wannabee bands, this is pathetic. RGTraynor 08:30, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guenter Neumann

Non notable assistant professor: "Guenter Neumann" orthodontist gives 19 Google hits, and Wikipedia Germany lists three Guenter Neumann, but not this one: may be on his way to become notable, but not yet Fram 07:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; I did get a single hit on this guy from German sites on Google, but just the one. RGTraynor 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:48, 3 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treasure (Pikmin)

An incomplete list of items you get in Pikmin. Of no encyclopediac value, Delete. Nifboy 07:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete insufficiently notable per nom. MLA 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable gamecruft. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AlexDW 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• ??? The list is much too long to finish in one session. I'm working as fast as I can, but the computer is two floors away from the Gamecube, and my guide is missing. I do have a tendency to include opinion without realizing it, so please by all means edit out the opinion. The only question I have is what "Insufficiently notable per nom" means and what "Non-notable gamecruft" means. Answers?--Dreyfus 18:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It means you should move your list to Gameinfo or Wikibooks instead of Wikipedia, as it isn't considered a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. Ben Standeven 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• I guess this means that Wikipedia is not and never will be the sum of human knowledge. No gameFAQs, no recipes, no how-to's. How many more areas of human knowledge are disallowed? --Trinity
• Delete. I've listed the spaceship parts in most of the location articles. Vidgmchtr 05:11, 8 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. Mailer Diablo 14:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrical air turbine

Another fictional device covering as military history, sponsored by "Ice Reich" (in cooperation with RexResearch this time). Sorry, this is complete nonsense and should be deleted as such per WP:V and WP:RS. The SS achieved this by building a reciprocating engine which used atmospheric oxygen to oxidize atmospheric nitrogen -- brave SS, only that this reaction is endothermous and will drive nothing. --Pjacobi 07:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Compare Jenseitsflugmaschine, Pirna Disc, BMW Flugelrad, Haunebu and their AfD discussions. --Pjacobi 07:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom, per WP:BALLS and WP:BULLSHIT. RGTraynor 08:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, complete nonsense. That second link was good for a few laughs, though. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not an expert on WWII Germany, but aside from horrific medical experiments, was the SS even involved in scientific research like this? -- Kjkolb 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete: pseudo-history if I've ever seen it. I've noticed many of the above listed articles have
  • Justo Miranda, Ted Nomura, James Lake, Luftwaffe 1946 Technical Manual #1: Projekt Saucer,(1998), Antarctic Press
  • Justo Miranda & P. Mercado, Reichsdreams Dossier #10: German Flight Discs,(1998)
  • Robert Arndt, Disc Aircraft of the Third Reich (1922-1945 and Beyond),(2005), Ice Reich Productions

as part of their references. Should we consider every article listing them as being tainted? If so, Focke Wulf Schnellflugzeug and Arthur Sack A.S.6 need to reviewed too. (comment by Netsnipe)

AFAIK, the AS6 was the only real one of these, and BTW didn't look very UFO-like, see de:Sack AS-6. The case of the Focke Wulf Schnellflugzeug is under investigation. --Pjacobi 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found Luftwaffe 1946 Technical Manual (Paperback) on Amazon [27] and guess what: "This entertaining (and thought-provoking) technical manual offers readers the lowdown on the scientifically advanced World War II aircraft from Ted Nomura's critically acclaimed alternate history series." Just wow. I've just gone through Wikipedia using Google and now weeded out every mention of Luftwaffe 1946 and mentions of "Ice Reich". --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone else is uncertain about what "alternate history series" means, it looks like it was created for entertainment, not as a coverup exposure/conspiracy theory type of thing. -- Kjkolb 03:34, 5 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LeninFighters

Completely non notable band. Their website even has a link to their Wikipedia entry as some means of notability. Ben W Bell talk 07:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and embalm. Nine total Google hits, the lead four of which is this Wikipedia article and the answers.com mirror. Hope they have their rendition of the "Internationale" down. RGTraynor 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor. Garage band plugging for world fame --Peripitus (Talk) 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements. --manchesterstudent 08:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gotta love spamming WP. The article was also created in Swedish and Dutch, both versions of which were already deleted. And the Geocities home page is icing on the "get rid of this crap" cake. Fun times! -- Kicking222 11:20, 3 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 snowballing this tar pit before gets out of hand. Hoax/OR. "Newbie" quite knowledgeable of the wikiways and policies. Despite of it being so long, it's just a single "newbie" which is quite knowledgeeable of the wikiways and policies -- Drini 01:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phyllis Jackson

User who created the article is attempting to spread the hoax of Celtic toe. That article is under Afd and this was created today about the only person who believes in said false phenomenon. The creator is attempting to do an end-run around the Afd of Celtic toe. Also, Dr. Jackson fails to meet any standards of notability. The only google hits [28] are for one single article from Discover magazine ten years ago. Discover, by the way, is not a peer reviewed scholarly magazine. IrishGuy ^talk 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• WP:ATTACK I believe the above comment to fall under the guidlines of Wikipedia:No personal attacks WP:ATTACK This user is clearly upset over personal issues. The references listed include the BBC, Radio 4, Discover, Current Archaeology, and the City Council of Glouchester. One may choose from any of the folloeing correct googles as follows: "Phyllis Jackson Chiropodist" or if you prefer "Phyllis Jackson Archaeologist", the "and" "Phyllis Jackson Archaeologist Chiropodist", we also have the American Version ... but that becomes circular as it is tainted by your own comments "Phyllis Jackson Archaeologist Podiatrist" All logical arguments made above have been countered. This leaves us with only personal motivation by the above post--BrittonLaRoche 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to put Phyllis Jackson's name in quotes when googling so it only searches for that exact name and not anything with both names in it. When you do so you get the following: "phyllis jackson" chiropodist 32 total hits. Far less unique hits. "Phyllis Jackson" Archaeologist 98 total hits. Again, far less unique hits. "Phyllis Jackson" Archaeologist Chiropodist 20 total hits. A minor handful of hits, the vast majority are repeated articles. None of this illustrates notability. IrishGuy ^talk 20:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You quote WP:ATTACK and then turn around and say This user is clearly upset over personal issues? Did you actually read the WP:ATTACK guidelines? The very first line of the guidelines states: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. I believe you just did. Not to mention your further insinuations and outright accusations below. IrishGuy ^talk 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My statements are only statements of fact. I have made no false statements anywhere. Your actions have exposed yourself for the newbie biter that you are. Please take this matter to arbitration, I beg you. A brief snopsis of your activities and mine will clearly bring these issues to light. You have bitten upon the newborn flesh one time too many--BrittonLaRoche 19:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I note further, for you to say that I am clearly upset over personal issues and then take it a step further to say what your statements are only statements of fact is a clear violation of WP:ATTACK. Should you continue to do so, you will only risk getting yourself in trouble. My edit history is open for anyone to peruse. Simply because I put your pet project up for AfD does not in any way lend credence to an outrageous and offensive claim that I have bitten upon the newborn flesh one time too many. IrishGuy ^talk 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that you are a newbie bitter, and that most newbies attack you back through vandalism. I will not do such a thing. I will use Ghandi's method of peaceful civil disobediance. I defy one thing, your actions. And I am prepared to be hurt by the process. Just like Ghandi, I draw fire upon myself and I am willing to suffer the consequences.--BrittonLaRoche 19:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what you sincerely believe. My edit history in no way backs up your wild claims. I put your pet project up for AfD. Period. Since then, myself and other editors have been attacked and harassed by you. If you have a martyr complex, I suggest you find somewhere else to vent. IrishGuy ^talk 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you find somewhere else to vent

The above comments only validate what I've been trying to point out. If you want me to go away, I wont do it. If you like wasting my time and yours, you are doing a good job of it. I've learned zero from you but a ton from most everyone else. The reason the whole don't bite the newbies article is here is for exactly this reason.--BrittonLaRoche 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at the comment in its entirety, shall we? If you have a martyr complex, I suggest you find somewhere else to vent. This was in respose to your statement: I will use Ghandi's method of peaceful civil disobediance. I defy one thing, your actions. And I am prepared to be hurt by the process. Just like Ghandi, I draw fire upon myself and I am willing to suffer the consequences. How is that not attempting to martyr yourself? Look through this AfD as well as the other two. The bulk of the text is yours. Long rants accusing people of things, long rants repeating the same things again and again, etc. Now let's look at what I said again...nowhere did I ask you to leave. I did, however, ask you to find a different place to vent. There is a difference. IrishGuy ^talk 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but perhaps the person who has the last word takes things the most personal. --BrittonLaRoche 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Werewolf Pack Identified I'd like to point out what I see as a clear example of a clique of rather recent additions to wiki-pedia, bitten newbies gone bad. I recommend we investigate why the same individuals attack the same articles. I believe the actions we see here is nothing more than an organized attempt at vandelism. The pack has a leader, and I'll not make any mention of the other individuals. Not every post here reflects the membership in the attempts to form an organized vandelism effort, but one or more posts are a clear example of such and are nothing more than personal attacks, and an attempt to remove ligitimate content from wiki-pedia. I suppose the correct term should be Werewolf Pack as the bite of the werewolf according to legend can turn you into one.--BrittonLaRoche 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When you are through making accusations about me, maybe you could find the time to outline how this subject is even remotely notable. IrishGuy ^talk 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I trully am sorry that it came to this. But, your repeated actions made it necessary to expose what I consider to be an organized effort to vandalize wikipedia content, and crush valid submissions made by people new to wiki-pedia. I tried to offer an appology. I looked at your submissions and made one of my own that matched yours. A simple two sentence statement of fact. I was surprised that you attempted to delete this as it exposes your true motives. I hope that this does go to arbitration. I want to bring all of this to light. I want the truth and nothing more. --BrittonLaRoche 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Should you do so, you will have to explain why you made various personal attacks on a previous AfD and then deleted them all while leaving up the responses to those attacks. Which, of course, made it appear that people were attacking you without basis when that clearly wasn't the true case. IrishGuy ^talk 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is simple I was ashamed of my behavior and I was going to quit wiki-pedia. I am not used to this type of treatment. I was determined to leave and to delete the article myself. I realized my ill will and bad feelings were not rational. I stopped, and licked my wounds and pondered. Because I come from a background of repect, love and tollerance, I decided to take a stand for truth and these principles, to return and make the way safe for other newbies. I wish to change the environment here, to make it more open and friendly. --BrittonLaRoche 19:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Being ashamed of your behavior doesn't give you the right to alter an AfD. What you did went against the very policies you have proudly bragged about reading in their entirety. Your behavior doesn't denote a stand for truth and principles, but moreso yet another article to propagate your pet project which you have outright admitted is your aim [29]. IrishGuy ^talk 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted them before I knew much about wiki-pedia. I am ashamed of those comments, but I stand by them. --BrittonLaRoche 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So, to clarify: You stand by claims that people who voted delete were vandals and asked for those who voted for deletion should have their editing privileges revoked [30]? IrishGuy ^talk 20:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Those that posted an opinion with nothing to back it yes, and as for you, yes. I believe you have behaved like a big meanie, with a vicious bite.--BrittonLaRoche 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So when someone votes for deletion without writing an in depth analysis why...that person becomes a vandal in your book? I am a big meanie? Because I have been correct in putting three non-notable articles up for AfD? Three that you now admit you had no real cause to write in the first place [31]? I fail to follow your logic. IrishGuy ^talk 21:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The logic is simple. I'm new and trying to learn. Anyone who just says "Delete" does not teach me anything. Someone who rubs it in is just down right mean. Phillis Jackson and the Celtic Toe may be urban legend similiar to the brass monkey if so it belongs here just as much as the others do. I'm trying to contribute, not defile. Why do you discourage contribution? Sayng something is nonsense and deleteing it is not the same as others have suggested as, labeling it correctly and putting it in its place. --BrittonLaRoche 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this subject is nonsense. Not all urban myths get Wikipedia articles...simply the ones that are notable. Celtic toe just plain isn't. A google search shows that there is one entry on the Urban Dictionary and that is all. Eminently non-notable. My behavior which you categorize as mean is only that way because you insist on creating numerous articles about the same subject even though every single AfD illustrates that none of this can be backed up. IrishGuy ^talk 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but perhaps the person who has the last word takes things the most personal. Shhhhhh. --BrittonLaRoche 21:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Britton, what does the above statement even mean? - Tapir Terrific 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the two of us are taking it personal. I'm trying to determine his psychological nature by giving him a choice between being right (not more at fault), or having the last word. I may have my answer as to how he handles making his choice. Perhaps he sends in a friend to gather more info. Did he imply you should ask this question? --BrittonLaRoche 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake. This is not some big conspiracy against you, Britton. Take a look at our respective edit histories: I have never communicated with IrishGuy, and to imply that we're in cahoots isn't doing anything to boost your credibility. - Tapir Terrific 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Instant Message or Email? It takes two to make a conspiracy. But, that is enough. I really don't belive you are working with him to attack me. I honestly count you as one of the ones helping me. I was just pulling your leg at this point. I just wanted to see if I could put out apossible flame war with the comment. I feel much better now. My skin is much thicker. And I bit myslef today. I was fooled into posting peer review articles that were nonsense, thus supporting his claim that this is nonsense. Someday's you just can't win for losing. --BrittonLaRoche 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone of wikipedia:Civility and Don't bite the newbies

• Comment - "The pack has a leader, and I'll not make any mention of the other individuals." - I'm of the viewpoint this is the worst sort of slur. If you have something to say to anyone here, say it. Don't use weasel words - get to the point and come straight out with it. --Charlesknight 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I did say it, as clear as possible. --BrittonLaRoche 18:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We have a group of people attacking newbies, and deleting valid content. I see this as an organized act of vandelism. --BrittonLaRoche 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF (the results are about a different person). None of her findings have been published in any peer-reviewed, scholarly works (Current Archaeology is not a scholarly journal). Article may have been made in an attempt to make a WP:POINT, per the previous AfDs. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Read the article

Review of Phyllis Jackson's work on foot bones at ancient grave sites, Listed Sources from International Journal of Osteoarchaeology

Roberts, C.A., Knüsel, C.J., and Race, L. (2004) "A foot deformity from a Romano-British cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the current evidence for Talipes in palaeopathology". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(5): 389-403. (ISSN: 1047-482X)

Anderson, T. (2004b) "The treatment of the feet in Anglo-Saxon England". The Foot 14: 38-41.

Anderson T.(2003). "A medieval case of bilateral metatarsus primus varus with analysis of its anatomy and allied deformities". The Foot.13: 156-165.

It is peer reviewed --BrittonLaRoche 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the Roberts et al paper on the clubfootted skeleton you've cited above, and Jackson does not appear in the references, acknowledgements, or anywhere at all in the paper. Are you sure her work is reviewed in there? Pete.Hurd 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through both the Anderson papers you mention published in The Foot, and there is no mention at all of Jackson in either of those! Pete.Hurd 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF -- GWO

CounterPasses Mutliple WP:BIO Checks...

1.The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

2.Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

3.The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

I think these three should do it, don't you? --BrittonLaRoche 18:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete as Gareth Owen --Charlesknight 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a vote of nothing more than opinion --BrittonLaRoche 18:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not really notable enough for her own entry Mammal4 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW - Since when was then benchmark of notability that work must be published in a peer-reviewed journal? Wikipedia only requires that the source is notable. No these aren't 'scholarly' magazines but the ideas still exist in published form which is enough. Yes the work isn't rigorously scientifically tested but it still exists as an idea, and its not like its published in a magazine that nobody reads either - I really think you guys should give the author a bit of slack on this and give them the benifit of the doubt that they are not trying to disrupt wikipedia, but just trying to contribute, albeit on topics which aren't really notable enough Mammal4 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So..em.. your argument is that the articles are not notable but.. wait that's the end of the conversation isn't it? --Charlesknight 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No there is no argument - I'm saying delete this because its not notable. I just made the point (concerning people's comments here and on the Celitc toe page) that notability is not dependent on being published in a peer-reviewed journal. Also, if you read my comment on the Celtic toe page you'll see that I suggested merging it with Morton's toe not deleting it (i.e ditch all the pseudo science stuff and just leave a short paragraph mentionning the urban myth part of it) because although its not scientific it does exist in folklore so should be recognised as such Mammal4 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to lack notability - which is a shame really! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Brookie, thanks for your help earlier. Could you please post the link WP:NOTEABLE? so I can investigate what standards the article is being judged by? Thanks, --BrittonLaRoche 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all of the above. - Tapir Terrific 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of someone elses opinion. How odd. --BrittonLaRoche 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT. NOTE: I do appreciate your elaboration below. I did not realise you were the same person. Obviously, you do have your own opinion. Point stricken. --BrittonLaRoche 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article has been backed by numerouse references, all of which are solid. --BrittonLaRoche 17:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Review of Phyllis Jackson's work on foot bones at ancient grave sites, Listed Sources from International Journal of Osteoarchaeology

Roberts, C.A., Knüsel, C.J., and Race, L. (2004) "A foot deformity from a Romano-British cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the current evidence for Talipes in palaeopathology". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(5): 389-403. (ISSN: 1047-482X)

Anderson, T. (2004b) "The treatment of the feet in Anglo-Saxon England". The Foot 14: 38-41.

Anderson T.(2003). "A medieval case of bilateral metatarsus primus varus with analysis of its anatomy and allied deformities". The Foot.13: 156-165.

In regards to IrishGuy's AfD nomination and BrittonLaRoche's objections to it: IrishGuy's comments may have toed the line (er, no pun intended), but I'm not sure what other conclusion to draw. This is now the second article of very questionable notability (the first being Celtic toe ring) that has been added for the sole purpose, it seems, of adding credibility and notability to the idea of the Celtic toe. The suggestion was made in the Celtic toe AfD debate to merge that article with foot, Morton's toe or digit ratio - a very reasonable and charitable suggestion, in my opinion, given that the validity of the whole concept is in such doubt. Another editor said of the Celtic toe article, "The problem with this article is that it over cooks the information and tries to make out that there is more to the evidence than their actually is," which I think is a good synopsis of the issue. Rather than taking those and other comments as constructive criticism and trying to find a more suitable venue for and presentation of the idea of the Celtic toe, BrittonLaRoche seems to be attempting to back up his original article with another non-noteworthy article. IrishGuy and the rest of us should still assume good faith in this matter, but I can understand his frustration. - Tapir Terrific 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The above statement draws from conclusions that are not present in this article. This article stands on its own. --BrittonLaRoche 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask that everyone leave aside all personal motivation, for whatever reason, and look at the contents of this article alone. Its purpose is to identify who Phillis Jackson is and what her work is about. Nothing more. --BrittonLaRoche 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The celtic toe has been referred to as the cornish toe as well, obviously whatever this thing is should be identified and fact seperated from fiction. That is my sole (pun intended) objecive for the celtic toe. This article is to introduce Phyllis Jackson and her work for what it is. The celtic toe will be re-written so that it fits with what it is, it will be a seperate article and will live and die by it own merrits. --BrittonLaRoche 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - when investigating the Celtic toe, I discovered nothing whatsoever to suggest that Phyllis Jackson is notable. BrittonLaRoche has a bad habit of adding 'references' which don't support the claims presented. --Nydas 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited references for Phyllis Jackson

It would be nice to actually get a look at the three references BrittonLaRoche has given us for Phyllis Jackson's notability, as the link provided only goes to a list of article titles. I realise that it is sometimes hard to get hold of accessable links for peer-reviewed journals because they generally require a subscription, but as the list stands it doesn't prove anything as it is only a list of article titles. I may be able to help as it appears that I might be able to at least view the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology article through my job, which seems to have access (I can't tell for definite now, as I am at home, but will know more tomorrow). If I can get hold of the paper, then I would be happy to email it to any intersted party and they can make up their own minds. If the paper doesn't prove her notability then I still vote delete. I hope this helps Mammal4 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! I could not ask for more. --BrittonLaRoche 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go for this one if you are on a limited budget.

Roberts, C.A., Knüsel, C.J., and Race, L. (2004) "A foot deformity from a Romano-British cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the current evidence for Talipes in palaeopathology". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(5): 389-403. (ISSN: 1047-482X)

Phyllis Jackson was digging on the site in 2002 as noted here

• "Gloucester Archaeology Unit Annual Report" Gloucester City Council, 2002, Retrieved 2002

Phyllis Jackson has continued her work on foot bones from sites throughout the city. She has now studied over sixty burials, from excavations at Gambier Parry Gardens, London Road, St Oswald's Priory, Blackfriars and Southgate Street. Her research, which looks at the structure of the foot, provides evidence for ethnic and tribal origins, deformity, disease and way of life (for an introduction to Miss Jackson's work see Current Archaeology 144, pp466-70). As always, volunteers and work experience students have provided invaluable assistance with improving the documentation and storage of archaeological material held at the unit. RA

Thank you, thank you, thank you. For the first time I feel like we are making progress. Prior to today I felt like I have been arguing that the world is round. And that references such as Newton, Gallileo, Einstein were not sufficient. --BrittonLaRoche 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK I've downloaded "Roberts, C.A., Knüsel, C.J., and Race, L. (2004) "A foot deformity from a Romano-British cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the current evidence for Talipes in palaeopathology". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(5): 389-403. (ISSN: 1047-482X)" - what is it I'm looking for? because as first glance I don't see anything? --Charlesknight 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish to see a copy and search for the following "Gambier Parry Gardens, London Road, St Oswald's Priory, Blackfriars and Southgate Street" as well as morton's toe and metatarsal, the reference is supposedly through the dig and the work of genetic traits in deformities, From what I gather Phillis worked on the same dig, and he does make refrence to her work --BrittonLaRoche 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Further comment - A search PDF does not reveal the presence of the word "jackson" anywhere in it.... I'm open to suggestions? --Charlesknight 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes automated search in a PDF does not always pick up the word (depending on the quality of the print and the font used) - you might have to bite the bullet and actually read the thing Mammal4 19:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

More Comment I have searched for twenty different words that are in the text, it finds them all, I have checked the references (because surely it it cites the work of jackson she is going to appear there - nil,zip,zilch. Anyone got a particular bit for me to read? --Charlesknight 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

please see http://www.cgknight.f2s.com/jackson1.jpg and http://www.cgknight.f2s.com/jackson2.jpg --Charlesknight 19:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 ?? Is it just a jpeg of the first page? I can't read past the abstract - am I doing something wrong? Mammal4 19:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to get it off the publisher page? I have it via my academic insituation subs --Charlesknight 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on your two links which brings up a jpeg of the first page which looks like adobe acrobat reader, but you can't actually do anything with it. To be honest I might just wait until tomorrow and use my work academic subscription. Offer still open for an emailed copy of the PDF to anyone else who wants a look at it Mammal4 19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish to see a copy and search for the following "Gambier Parry Gardens, London Road, St Oswald's Priory, Blackfriars and Southgate Street" as well as morton's toe and metatarsal, the reference is supposedly through the dig and the work of genetic traits in deformities, From what I gather Phillis worked on the same dig, and he does make refrence to her work --BrittonLaRoche 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single reference to anyone called Jackson - either in the text or importantly the references. Yes Metatarsal is in there but that's it. --Charlesknight 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

that's because it is a jpeg of the first page - it's purely to show 1) I have the article and 2) I attempted a search. I editor under my real name, I cannot breach the terms of the academic licence that we have by handing out copyrighted material to people who have not paid for it. If you can get hold of a copy tomorrow - we can crosscheck with each other. --Charlesknight 19:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Removed reference - OK I have read the Roberts et al article and I am happy that it does not contain reference to Jackson. I have therefore removed that reference from the article in line with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability . I am now hoing to print off and re-read the article to doublecheck I have not missed something. If that is the case, I will put the reference back in. --Charlesknight 19:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you search the footnotes? Can you cut and paste the footnotes and references in the article? That does not violate copyright. --BrittonLaRoche 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are no footnotes - As for cuting and pasting the references -

http://www.cgknight.f2s.com/jacksonref.txt

• Comment I have concerns with the sketch used to illustrate the article. The subjects are near-unidentifiable. Deeper searching finds the original photo. If you can, I'd suggest getting permission to use the photo. Beyond that, I abstain. --DarkAudit 19:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"The subjects are near-unidentifiable..." yes because I stink as an artist. People are the hardest to draw. This is a sketch I made of that photo. That makes it my work, in turn I give it freely to the world. I prefer your opinion and your justification rather than to abstain. I am learning the process the hard way. I do not know of any other way to learn in this environment. I've read all the policies and procedures I could in two weeks. Here are some more examples of what I have done for wikipedia. I do this because it takes an extreem amount of effort to request permission to use a photo and then prove that permission was granted. Further the author has to grant the rights in away that makes it usable by anyone who wishes to reference wiki pedia. I found it next to impossible. Its far easier to sketch and prove I did it. "The Lost Colony's Creation of Sir Francis Drake" --BrittonLaRoche 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Peer Review articles are now suspect

If I have misled anyone on the peer review artciles I appologize. I believe I may have been baited. I do not have access to those articles but was given these are verified peer review links. That really stinks. I think I've been suckered in and made a really big stink, to make my self look silly. I'm writing back to the source for further verification. This was given to me by a supposed geneaological site as evidence which makes me shift gears and question the celtic toe... Take it for fact though, the refernces I posted do list Phyllis Jackson and her work. If she is not peer reviewable then I'd like to debunk a myth that suckered me in. Charlesknight would you be so kind as to post the other refernce links if you get them? If I'm a sucker then, the BBC, Current Archeology, Discover and the others are even bigger suckers.

happy to send you the PDF tomorrow if you leave an email address. I must say, it is a bit strange that you would argue so verermently on the back of some articles that you haven't even read ..... Mammal4 20:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot read them, and the source that gave me the links to things I could verify also gave me those. What can I say? I belived the source with out being able to see them. The rest I have been able to verify. Neither can I verify any of the remarks made by these sites, thats goes beyond Phyllis Jackson. I think we have something here, and its well worth listing, otherwise you will probably see the "cornish toe" and other variations.--BrittonLaRoche 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not really inclined to - I've just spend what amounts to a two hours on what appears to be snipe hunt. Wikipedia is clear, if you wish your edits to remain YOU need to suppose them. I don't understand why we should "take it for fact" about the other references when you were quite clearly 100% wrong in one case. Sure it is now the case that you need to take positive action to back your claims. Are you able to supply any evidence that Jackson is mentioned in either of the Foot articles? --Charlesknight 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Peer Review articles will be removed, as they are identified as snipe. The rest of the links have been Identified and verified.

I must be a bloody sucker for punishment - "::Anderson, T. (2004b) "The treatment of the feet in Anglo-Saxon England". The Foot 14: 38-41" - right I have this article (again I'll jpg a page if people want proof) - I find no evidence of anyone called Jackson mentioned in it. I'm happy to be corrected. --Charlesknight 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Anderson T.(2003). "A medieval case of bilateral metatarsus primus varus with analysis of its anatomy and allied deformities". The Foot.13: 156-165. - Again I have downloaded this article and am happy to provide jpeg proof of such - again I find no evidence of anyone called Jackson mention in it. Again I am happy to be corrected. --Charlesknight 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain that none of those articles list her. I was given bad information, your two hours is nothing compared to the amount of time it took me to track down a couple of supposed archeologists working with Phyllis, and I doubt anyone looks a s foolish as I do, regarding these peer reviews. I contacted other sources and demanded their references only to find in the end that not only was I fooled, but wasted a ton of time on the matter.--BrittonLaRoche 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

To conclude my interaction with this AFD before I starting eating my feet

This is the situation as I find it - All of the support Peer Review material was wrong - I have determined this via my own searches of the academic literature. I can also find no evidence of anyone using Jackson as a citation - therefore in academic terms she does not exist.

As for the other references - "Pollard J. (2003) The Seven Ages of Brittian, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. ISBN 0340830409" - I have not read and therefore cannot comment on it, the other stuff is all light fluffy material all a period of ten years where Jackson either gets to say "I think" or just notes that she was somewhere when something happened. I therefore conclude that she is not notable. and change my vote to STRONG DELETE. I bid you good morning, goodafternoon and good evening. I am done. --Charlesknight 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom, and per the excellent research work performed above. _Please_ don't let this one go out "No consensus"... Tevildo 21:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You see. This is the point entirely. I learn from my mistakes, and by what you tell me. What is this "No Consensus" you speak of? Thats the whole point of why these discussions are here. --BrittonLaRoche 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh Thank you. WP:Consensus So noted. --BrittonLaRoche 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• delete I've been looking (through ISI database etc) and cannot find a single peer reviewed publication for this Phyllis Jackson. If she's a notable anthropologist, then she ought to be rated on a scale similar to the professor test. She falls far, far below that level. Pete.Hurd 22:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm satisfied with the research above and it'd be a shame to let this close as anything but the trainwreck that it is. Opabinia regalis 23:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails all criteria of notability. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. We have already lost the "Celtic Toe Ring" as non-noteable, its gone forever. Wikipedia will never have a reference to it again, but other sites such as google will always have such a reference. Actually thousands of references. "Googles: Celtic Toe Ring" Google: 9,510, Wiki-Pedia: 0, Thats a great score for people who are searching for information on the topic. Do you really think the 9 thousand some odd sites feel that the celtic toe ring is non-noteable, and that no one is interested? --BrittonLaRoche 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mammal4 research conclusions

I've checked out the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology reference cited above. It doesn't mention Phyllis Jackson anywhere, or Celtic toe, or Morton's toe for that matter. I've read it in moderate detail, and it is a quite interesting article, but not really relevent to any discussion here or on the Celtic toe page. This agrees with and confirms Pete.Hurd's and Charlesknight's reading of the article. I can't get hold of the two articles in "the Foot" journal so I can't comment on these. As far as notability, Phyllis Jackson actually scores less unique hits that I do if I search for my professional name! I don't think that I require an article about myself so to confirm what I said originally, she simple isn't notable enough to be included. Strong Delete. If anybody else wants a copy of the paper give me your email address and I will send you a copy. Unlike Charlesknight I don't write under my own name, so am not worried about passing on subscription material (although I sympaphise with his concerns). Besides, i don't feel that it is any worse than passing on a copy of an article to a colleague, which I do regularly as part of my job when discussing ideas. All the best Mammal4 10:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Whistles in awe at the discussion, genuflects to the masters, and bows on the way out the door. Tychocat 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Its not over. Far from it. Just because I was duped by one misguided source does not mean that she was not peer reviewed. Remember, many articles start off in pretty bad shape. Should you delete it, then in all good conscious you should re-write it, if it turns out do be peer reviewed and academically note-worthy. If not then let me finish it with the proper credentials. I had never heard of "Osteoarcheology" before. At least the misguided source gave me a new keyword to use in my search. I have found new articles on my own that I will now investigate."Phyllis Jackson Osteoarcheology Academic Reviews"

Please don't vote more than once. IrishGuy ^talk 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - OK that does not link to articles but rather a 68 pg document called "Current and Recent Research in Osteoarchaeology: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Osteoarchaeological Research Group (The Osteoarchaeological Research Group) (Paperback)" published in 1998 about their meeting in 1995. The ORG seems to be a hobbist organization - "The Osteoarchaeological Research Group (ORG) was set up in 1993 with the intention of bringing together anyone who works with or has an interest in human and/or animal remains. The core function of the group is to provide a forum for the exchange of news and ideas through quarterly newsletters and regular meetings. We are also interested in promoting the provision of careers advice and training in this field, providing information on services for specialists and considering standards for recording/reporting." - I can find no evidence that this organization has been notable in any way or has made any significant contribution to this area of endeavour. A cursory examination also suggests that none of it members are notable (again happy to be corrected and please do). So what we appear to have is a mention of a non-notable person in a non-notable book by a non-notable organization. I still find the evidence of notablity for this person and their claims to be lacking. Those who wish to keep need to provide something more solid than we have seen before. -- --Charlesknight 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the strike through in the text above? Was someone in the org noteable? --BrittonLaRoche 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I tell you what - once you've read it and you know who and why - let us know. I would not want to cut across your research too much. --Charlesknight 17:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Searching on the "Osteoarchaeological Research Group" turned up Charlotte Russell a University Professor and her article: "The Anglo-Saxon Influence on Romano-Britain: Research past and present Charlotte Russell", I believe, my lesson as far as research goes is "Nothing to it, but to do it --- yourself" --205.158.160.209 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have learned from my mistakes, and I have thick skin now. I will no longer submit any article I have not reviewed with my own two eyes, you can count on it.--BrittonLaRoche 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also this is an example of where the peer review process does help shape the article, don't let your own comments and contributions go to waste. I have removed all the snipe articles and I will not post the new articles until I verify they do indeed site Phyllis Jackson and her work. --BrittonLaRoche 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Further Research Continues

If there is academic any peer review of Phillis Jackson's work, I hope to find it. I won't post any more peer review articles until I can review it or find someone who can send me a copy. If I cannot find a copy then I will note that in the article also. If no one in academic circles referes to her work then there must be a reason. She has been around with her theroies since 1992 and keeps popping up, obviously if they don't refer to her, there is a reason. --BrittonLaRoche 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Key Words

Anthropology,

Bioarchaeology,

Paleopathology,

Osteoarchaeology,

Osteoarchaeological,

Osteoarchaeological Research Group

Google Searches

"Phyllis Jackson" Osteoarchaeology

"Phyllis Jackson" Paleopathology (nothing)

"Phyllis Jackson" Osteoarchaeological

"Osteoarchaeological Research Group"

Osteoarchaeological Research Group Members -- Some appear to be at least some what note-able

University of Durham - Charlotte Russell [32]

Human Tissue Authority [33]

Comment::: All your links appear to be circluar and all seem to revolve around the same 1 or 2 non-notable bits of right from @1996. As this stage of the game, I think we need at least ONE source of SOMEONE notable even making mention of her theory - even if it's to say "no it's a load of bollock!" --Charlesknight 18:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of contacting a number of professors related to the "Osteoarchaeological Research Group" with similiar articles to ask their direct opinion of her work. --BrittonLaRoche 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Charlesknight. Alun 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alun, since you have no opinion of your own, you should probably wait until Charles Knight and I have heard from an academic expert in the same circle of organizations that Phillis Jackson is involved with. --BrittonLaRoche 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Need I remind you of WP:CIV? Alun didn't say he had no opinion of his own, merely that he agreed with someone else. It isn't very civil to tell someone what he/she should probably do. IrishGuy ^talk 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I should say since his is "did not express his own opinion." but I'm surprised you are responding for him. Seems to further my point that he is not actively involved. Or perhaps he is just a sock puppet, and someone forgot to log in as him when he posted the above repsonse. --BrittonLaRoche 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A sock puppet? Have you considered CLICKING on his username and actually taking a 5 second glance at his user contributions and userpage? Does that look like a sockpuppet to you? Please try to do at least a gram of research before you accuse people of being sockpuppets. --Charlesknight 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Britton, this is now the second time in this AfD debate alone that you have accused someone of using inappropriate means of expressing an opinion. Above, you accused IrishGuy and me of maliciously working against you, and couldn't even issue a pseudo-apology without taking a moment to further your conspiracy theory ("What about Instant Message or Email?").[34] Now you accuse Alun of sockpuppetry, while as Charlesknight pointed out above, a momentary glance at his userpage or contributions list would settle that question. Making accusations like that is unacceptable. — Tapir Terrific 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My actions are unacceptable. I am not accusing allun of sock pupetry. I am accusing IrishGuy. I suggest the rest of you duck low. Irish guy since you are nothing more than a tiny mined wiper of other peoples bottoms, I fart in your genral direction and taunt you a second time. I suggest you go away and vent your frustrations else where. Obviously you have no power and are of no consequence what so ever. How's that? I've been picking a fight, wanting to take this to arbitration. I hope the rest of you can see this and stay away. Oh, I'd like to add more. I think he is a vandal and a leader of a malicious pack to run off new contributers. Bring it on you wimp. I'm calling you out IrishGuy its high noon and I'm counting to three.... one ... two... --BrittonLaRoche 17:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

With all the stuff you have pulled and how many people you have annoyed/angered so far...I really don't think it is in your best interest to take this to arbitration. You have broken far too many rules already. IrishGuy ^talk 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take that course - you need to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes --Charlesknight 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Charles, no need for that just yet though. I'm drawing the arbitration line in the sand, placing aribtration chip on my shoulder, and daring... no I double dare IrishGuy to knock it off by filing it himself. I'll sweeten the pot. Should you decide to file for arbitration then I ask you agree to this term: the loser of the arbitration will pack his bags and leave wiki-pedia forever. I think it fair to warn you, IrishGuy, I've brought my bag of garlic, a wooden crucifix, holy water and a silver bullets melted down from saint medalions and a small silver crucfix (worn about the neck) I may be mixing myths but hey, vampire orwarewolf whatever type of newbie biter you are, you are going down. If you are the chicken warewolf I think you are ( who else would bite defenseless newbies? ) you won't do it. If you don't do it please take your "chicken warewolf" label, place it on your forehead and go vent somewhere else. Wiki-pedia is better off with out the newbie biters. All one has to do is vanquish the head warewolf, vampire or whatever and nomral people (especially newbies) become civil and will be the happy place its meant to be. Naturally I'm suffering from the bite of the warewolf, I'm foaming at the mouth and biting everyone... but I'm going after the one that bit me. --BrittonLaRoche 19:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want arbitration so badly, then do it. If not, stop ranting. Either way, you are in no position to tell people that they should leave, nor are you in a position to so flagrantly violate WP:ATTACK. Keep in mind, should you persue this, everything that you have done so far in these AfDs will not shine well on you. IrishGuy ^talk 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

When does the decision period on this expire? Is it next Monday? Mammal4 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whenever it is, it won't be soon enough. This malarky has gone on long enough. --Nydas 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: insufficiently notable. — getcrunk what?! 00:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reliable sources do not confirm WP:PROF. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:27, 6 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strip chess

Unlike strip poker, I cannot see that this is a normal "variant" of chess. The discussion of strip chess strategy looks a lot like original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NOR, looks like something made up one day. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although brings a funny image to mind. School chess club members hanging out for girls to play this. --Peripitus (Talk) 11:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, will be sad to see the article go though —Pengo 11:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we could post the rules to BJAODN if people find the description funny... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing funny about this article. Aside: I was in my high school's chess club with a good friend who, despite a ubernerd demeanor, is also gorgeous. If I could get her to play strip chess, I would. Oh, wait, no I wouldn't, because it's stupid. -- Kicking222 11:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete almost every game could concevably have a strip variant. Don't even get me started on strip Buckaroo --IslaySolomon 14:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. PJM 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Coredesat --Guinnog 15:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I like strip-Yahtzee myself, but don't think either one's going to catch on. Fan1967 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although strip-Twister has possibilities. Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete maybe create an article about strip variants of other games since you can take almost any game and create a strip version of it. But by itself this is nn. --Pboyd04 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, see Strip games ;-) -- (Patrick 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC))
• Weak delete, unsourced and unlikely to be sourced by anything citeable except original-research articles in Playboy/Penthouse/etc. By the way, IslaySolomon and Pboyd04 were correct about people devising "strip" versions of almost any other game. There was a thread about this very idea on BoardGameGeek a month ago: [35]. Barno 23:01, 3 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deo-india-design

Blatant self-promotion and link spamming. Fails WP:CORP.  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  -- 09:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tevildo 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Fram 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; also, article is poorly formatted. --AlexDW 17:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 17:22, 4 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Slade

I do not believe that she is notible enough to warrant her own article. The information in this article should perhaps be included in Theo Walcott's article or the Wags article. I appreciate that she has been in the British media a number of times over the past month but with the end of England's World Cup campaign press coverage will fizzle out. I don't have a problem with her having an article if her personal achievement and notability warrant it at a later stage. Lynnathon 09:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Wikipedia is not a scrapbook for paparazzi clippings. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia certainly isn't a scrapbook, but it is an encyclopaedia. Melanie Slade is receiving a lot of attention in the media at the moment; it would look very strange to the average internet user if WP didn't have an article. Robwingfield ^(talk) 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia. This means that much of the trivial stories in the mainstream media - even ones which received much coverage - are not suitable for Wikipedia. It would look very strange if Wikipedia was filled with the trash stories of the tabloids, or indeed, of the higher end media tooBwithh 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, or merge into Wags. 15-minutes-of-fame-style tabloid articles and getting her breasts out in a tabloid is not the same as encyclopedic notability. I'd prefer to merge into a list on the Wags page, but quite happy with delete too. Non-encyclopedic Teencruft/Wankcruft, Wikipedia is not a fansite nor a list of fansites. I question the notability of fellow unter-celebrity Coleen McLoughlin too. — Estarriol ^talk 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At first glance, it looks as if Coleen has done more to establish her own notability seperate from Wayne Rooney. --DarkAudit 16:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, that does admittedly appear to be true. — Estarriol ^talk 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Footballer's girlfriend and page 3 girl != notability. If Walcott is a bust, then she'll be quickly forgotten. --DarkAudit 16:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has become famous due to link but I'd argue is actually more famous than Theo - maybe his article should be merged into hers? Publicity appearances, being using for Race for Life publicity, etc. She is a regular in the media (including photo in The Guardian last week) - agree with Robwingfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsteadman (talk • contribs)

• Comment Fame is not the deciding criterion for inclusion - encyclopedic notability is. They are not synonyms (fortunately), and levels and durations of fame are strongly relative. — Estarriol ^talk 16:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" is from WP:BIO and fits this article perfectly. Robertsteadman 16:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Newsworthy events" is where it falls down. The contents of tabloids are not always "newsworthy"; they thrive on making non-newsworthy events seem as if they were, and in theory should be ashamed for doing so, although of course they have no shame. "Theo Walcott on England football team" is newsworthy, "he has a girlfriend who has a car with a custom number plate and is doing some A-levels and some charity work" isn't. No offense meant to the authors, but nothing in her article is newsworthy. — Estarriol ^talk 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - that's very judgemental of you. And doing some charity work is an understatement - being used by one of the biggest UK charities for one of its biggest events to help promote it is newsworthy in itself, let alone the Theo stuff, the modelling, etc. It's not up to us to judge the quality of what is making the news, merely report what is being written about. Melanie Slade is newsworthy - its that simple. Robertsteadman 17:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• We are not reporters, we are encyclopedia builders, and I think that is exactly our job - to sift what is noteworthy out of the rest. We are not hack reporters that hide behind the journalistic code to justify tabloidism. This lady, with all due respect to her, has not yet done anything which is noteworthy enough to warrant her own article - a section in Theo's article or the WAGs article is probably all that is justified. And yes, that's judgemental - intentionally so, as we are here explicitly to judge the matter. But I think our relative positions are clear on this one by now. — Estarriol ^talk 18:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 'Actively involved' leaves much to interpretation. I could say I was 'actively involved' in the Greater Clarksburg 10K (major race that attracts world-class runners), even though all I did was run in it twice. --DarkAudit 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not Hello!. Much mainstream news coverage is too trivial or not sufficiently encyclopedically noteworthy to be included in Wikipedia. This falls way below the mark. Bwithh 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - it is not up to us to judge what is trivial - much (most?) of WP could be considered trivial by others - however, someone recieving signioficant coverage in natonal newspapers is noteworthy and should be included. There seems to be a lot of snobbery about this and that is very sad. Sure, she hasn't found a cure for cancer or broken a world record but she is extremely newsworthy and WP should reflect that she is a known entity in the UK. She also has a number of fan sites for her and sites following her every move. Please stop the snobbery.Robertsteadman 06:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a discussion between editors of a fantastic encyclopedia where each person is entitled to their opinion. It is not right for a fellow editor to throw insulting comments regarding other's views. I appreciate that you consider the article to be worthy of being kept but that is your opinion, I don't think that snobbery has anything to do with it. Please retract you last comment. Lynnathon 07:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to a single sentence on Walcott's page. Being in the newspapers is not the same as being newsworthy. -- GWO
• Merge a considerably cut down version to Walcott's page per GWO. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per GWO. David | Talk 11:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Theo Walcott and WAGs as necessary. Melanie Slade hasn't achieved notability. --A bit iffy 08:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Walcott or retain. The WAGs article is mainly about the emergence and use of the word; not tittle-tattle (which may nevertheless be interesting) about individuals. The article needs some tidying and proper citations, but I can't see the advantage in simply deleting it. A pity that the article doesn't include the wonderful Walcott comment in the Times that Coleen McC probably thinks an A-level is the first floor of Top Shop. --IXIA 16:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was on the line about voting to merge with Walcott, but a google news search (offering 98 results, for the record) has her just signing a TV deal.[36] A regular google search has about 322,000, which I think is a not paltry number.[37] A look at the history shows that over 10 distinct signed in users have edited the page, not counting adding the deletion tags.[38] To me, these numbers indicate that Melanie is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I would also like to strongly oppose a WAG merge. I see the WAGs article eventually growing into a truthiness or chav type one. The article is about the word, its history, its growth, and its spin-offs. Turning it into a collection of the various WAGs would, I think, be a great detriment to the article. If this does get merged, please put it in with Theo, not with WAGs. Vickser 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm now for KEEP, not merge. I've just checked the Walcott article and it is a serious one about the footballer himself. Which leads me to think that MS is probably best left where it is. It should be improved, but nothing to be gained by deleting and Wikipedia is well placed to cover this sort of person.--IXIA 18:50, 8 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unscrewed Army

Blatant self-promotion for non-notable website. Has no Alexa.com traffic ranking. 849 Google hits for "unscrewed army". Fails:WP:WEB. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  10:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: self-promotion? It's just a web site. It's not like the guy will make money off of it being on Wikipedia. Plus this article has to do with the show "Unscrewed with martin sargent". How many hits should a web site have to get on wikipedia? I don't see no real guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al-gore (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment: The guidelines are set out in Wikipedia:Notability (web). --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  10:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The site will have it's own original podcasts this fall. I don't know if that really counts. It has also won some awards from other sites (I don't know which and from what site}. You can email the webmaster at senkingzjester@yahoo.com if you need prof or any other info (i believe one of them still uses the e-mail address). it was posted on the site but alot of stuff has been taking down.
  • The site will also have original interviews. Laura Foy has been interviewed by one of the creators. Atleast that's what it said in a email they send to people that are members of their email list. Unscrewed This Month is also an original feature.
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a website directory. You need to be able to justify the site's notablity as stated in Wikipedia:Notability (web) before most other editors would allow this article to remain on Wikipedia. Please also read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to understand how this process works. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I really loved Unscrewed, and it's a damn shame that it got cancelled so quickly. With that said, of course, this web site is completely non-notable, and despite the above editor's valiant attempts, there is no notability to possibly be asserted. -- Kicking222 11:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability to be asserted. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete forum with no Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn web site --AlexDW 17:16, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 14:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patentstorm

Non-notable website. Google hits [39] include hits to the web site itself, Wikipedia-related hits, and one further relevant hit only [40]. Edcolins 10:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Edcolins 10:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AlexDW 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Edcolins. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:39, 9 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. Mailer Diablo 14:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haffiez Michael Lithman

Non-notable political activist, zero hits on Google, two irrelevant hits on Yahoo. Vanity page, as the creator is HMLithman. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:V. Previously tagged for speedy A7, tag removed by editor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - On current available information this appears to be straightforward vanity. I have dropped the author a word to ask him to justify the article. SilkTork 10:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article describes him as a "low-profile figure". Eluchil404 03:00, 8 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Course in Miracles (book)

• Delete Another page by this name already exists: A Course In Miracles. How many articles do we need about this hardly notable topic? The Deletrix 06:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:A Course in Miracles, this looks to be an intentional split in progress. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-02 10:40Z

Comment This is the results of the merging of all of the other articles that have already come before AfD. Hopefully, this will be the one that remains since it is based on actual reliable secondary sources, written in NPOV, etc. Please see Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Kenneth Wapnick, Authorship of A Course in Miracles, etc. Ste4k 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. What we need here is an article on the book, an article on the movement, and then we'll see if there are any sections so big they should be broken out. The current article at A Course In Miracles is ghastly, a veritable cornucopia of unverified, uncited, uncritical commentary, and is severley bogged down with arguing how massively significant this movement is, withotu actually providing any verifiable statistics from any reputable sources external to the movement itself. Just zis Guy you know? 12:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JzG. Ste4k 23:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per JzG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article as it stands is full of errors. I'd try to fix them, but I'd like to know if the page is going to be kept. Gene Ward Smith 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Go on and fix the errors, some cleanup might help. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, do fix it. A fixed artricle is more likely to be kept anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 22:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --69.61.239.164 05:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)I found the article interesting and it sounds authoritative. If it has any glaring inaccuracies, I would appreciate corrections.

• Deletion nomination withdrawn. I withdraw the nomination. The Deletrix 06:56, 4 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 nomination was delete. Mangojuice^talk 13:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Course in Miracles (book)

Original Debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottperry (talk • contribs) Resubmitted Afd nomination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottperry (talk • contribs)

• Delete or Merge. I resubmit this nomination. I don't see how sidestepping the problems mentioned above would resolve them. Rather it seems to me that it would merely compound them. If editors wish to improve the main article, or to divide the article down into a 'book article' and also a 'movement article' then it seems to me that this first needs to be discussed and agreed to on the article discussion page. This 'book' article seems to me to be quite POV, calling the students of this book a 'cult', and attempting to place what seems to me to be undue attention on a single contributor to the early publication of ACIM who was a transexual. Please do not delete this discussion until after it has had due time to be fully discussed here.

Thanks , -Scott P. 01:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Procedural Keep based on the fact that nominator The editor that has reopened this AfD is personally involved with the topic matter. The word "cult" is a direct quote from a valid reputible resource "Publisher's Weekly". The gender of the original contributor and his philanthropic contributions are also matters which are quotes from both the New York District Court as well as the philantrhopist's legacy foundation. No original research. Ste4k 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: For what it's worth, the article calls the book a "cult favorite". It does not say that the devotees are a cult. -Will Beback 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The term "cult favorite" does not mean cult per se. Movies, such as Rocky Horror Picture Show have been referred to as "cult favorites". The term simply means that a particular item holds a great deal of appeal, is perhaps even a centerpiece of the lifestyle of, a comparatively small portion of the overall population. The Deletrix 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The term cult, when applied to a religious movement in any direct or indirect way, may also imply certain additional connotations beyond simply a group of unusually devoted movie goers. It seems to me that there might be other more effective and less potentially misleading terms or phrases to use here than the term used by the Publisher's Weekly author, such as perhaps the phrase "which has managed to gain a significant group of devoted students." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottperry (talk • contribs)
        • I agree.The Deletrix 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Regardless of what editors think the word "cult" means, per policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." Therefore any individual opinion about the word "cult" is up to the reader, and our jobs are to provide the reader with reputibly verifiable previously published information. Ste4k 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Unless this is Wikisource, some interpretation and synthesis of source material is required to write the most objective and neutral and verifiable of articles. Refering to ACIM followers as a cult can't be defended by refering to the word "cult" found in a secondary source and saying "look, it's verifiable!" because it is clearly taken out of context. Have you not seen enough people distort the meaning of Biblical text by pulling it out of context to support some non-neutral agenda? There is no difference here. Neutrality of articles requires thinking and interpretation on the editors part and this is a component that cannot be removed from article writing, again, unless this is Wikisource or Wikiquote. Nor should you say Wikisource is built on verifiability-not-truth, for it is surely through verifiability that you are hoping to retain the truth, for it is what you value. —Antireconciler 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
              • I can see your point, but the statement in the article does not refer to "ACIM followers", whatever or whomever those might be. Here is the statement: "It became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups, well over a million copies have been printed, multiple foreign-language editions exist, and it remains a cult favorite." I read four different things there, none of which necessarily have to with one another unless one injects a personal bias. The word "cult" itself, only has negative connotations to people whom have only experienced the word from a negative perspective. From an objective NPOV perspective, and from the perspective of PublishersWeekly, this is the term used to distinguish a small religious group from a large religion. The entire first section also gives accolades for the number of books sold. Do you believe it impossible that there is a significant portion of 1.5 millison readers that like cults? The nominator says, "calling the students of this book a 'cult'". Do you think that this statement is true? The nominator also says, "undue attention on a single contributor to the early publication of ACIM who was a transexual." The contributor in question put forth $440,000 as the initial catalyst and was very open and proud about gendre issues during a time (70's) when "out of the closet" hadn't even yet come out of the closet. The contributor is now deceased, but has left an educational foundation as a legacy. To pull out from the entire article only these two terms and express fears of bad connotations seems to be done from a biased point of view rather than neutral. The term "ACIM" by the way is considered to represent only a faction of the full population that reads books of this title. To present a neutral perspective, factionism should be avoided. Ste4k 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Why hang on to "cult" and quibble over its meaning. I'm a fairly new editor and normally a bit timid, but tonight was my night to live dangerously and experiment with "being bold". A lot of electrons were being killed to flog this horse so I went ahead and just reworded the sentence to avoid using "cult". Those masochistically keen on minutiae can read my legalistic reasoning on the article talk page and the truly masochistic can resurrect the word and keep debating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)
                  • For additional discussion of the "cult" language issue, see my user page; Ste4k has taken strong exception to my handling of this issue. --A. B. 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since it was involved in what seems a very important copyright case and has had a notable influence on people. And shouldn't this be on a different AfD page rather than right below the first? I suggest making a new AfD page and moving the dicussion there, otherwise someone might think the discussion has been closed if they just glance at the top half of the page. Xuanwu 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As the discussion was set up for archiving after only two days of discussion while some disagreement still seemed to remain unanswered, I have removed the boxing of the upper portion of this discussion. Thanks for pointing this out. -Scott P. 12:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The discussion ended because I withdrew my nomination. The Deletrix 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I apologize, my mistake. -Scott P. 13:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it would be helpful on the nominator's part to contact each of the people that voted on this matter earlier, since the nominator believes the reason is different enough to re-open a closed discussion that the other parties believe has been closed and dispensed with. Or if the nominator believes that the question put forth is wholly the same as put forth by the former nominator, then the seperation between Original and Resubmitted sections should be removed. If the latter is the case, then my procedural vote will be striken. Ste4k 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Done. Thanks for the suggestion. -Scott P. 13:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I should have saved you the trouble. What could I have been thinking? I thought this was an encyclopedia that had facts in it before I came here. DOH!!! Ste4k 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A good deal of work has been done into digging around the copyright case. It is not important, and certainly not very important. It is not widely cited as precedent, and is discussed only in a couple of tangential references. Penguin are a highly litigious firm, this was very run-of-the-mill stuff. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, delete duplicate content from A Course in Miracles, move any remainder that relates to the book and is not found in A Course in Miracles (book) to this article, and leave a section header devoted to an introduction of the book that links to A Course in Miracles (book) as a main article corresponding with that section. Leave the main article for the Course's theological and philosophical interest. If I type in "A Course in Mircles" in the searchbox, I will expect to find a detailed description of what A Course in Miracles is, which will be what the book says, not where it came from. —Antireconciler 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A unified article structure or a fractured one? Should this article (and the logic of its creation) remain, then the previous main article on ACIM would essentially have to be deleted and a new article only about the movement would have to be started. This article seems to me to be an attempt by its creator to sidestep the traditional Wiki process of dialogue with the editors of the main article, and to ultimately thereby delete it. I do not agree with the logic of the creation of this article, and I believe that this discussion should be clarified. It chould be clarified here that either there will be two articles: one about the movement and one about the book, or there will be only one article about both. It seems to me that this is what this discussion should ultimately determine. No?

If this is an accurate assesment of what we are discussing here, then the question essentially becomes: Is the movement better fully described apart from the book article or within it? It appears that the creator of this article has not actually read much of the book itself, but instead has mainly focused on the external circumstances of its authorship and early publication, which admittedly are unusual. The actual contents of this book repeatedly stress the need to steer clear of formal organization. Thus no formal officially sanctioned movement has yet formed around this book, but instead the majority of its students focus primarily on independent study of the book. By this I mean that the original editors and publishers of this book have never sanctioned the formation of such an organization, and the majority of its students do not belong to any such formal organization. I do not see why this movement deserves a separate article in Wiki.

I believe that the creator of this article would do best to follow the traditional Wiki course of dialogue with other editors rather than attempting to delete the main article via what seems to me to be a rather circuitous procedure here.

-Scott P. 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; seems to be a POV fork. — goethean ॐ 21:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any useful material to ACIM. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into main article. There is useful content in this article that would benefit the other article. Once merged, address the various issues identified with each article and build the merged article into something better, using consensus editing. Delete as POV forks any new ACIM-related articles that crop up unless agreed to on the talk page of the main article. The merged article may get big enough to justify subdividing, but don't do this until the merged article is otherwise in very good shape and a consensus evolves for how to subdivide it. NPOV, consensus, verifiability, encyclopedic -- all are much more important than article length. They're also much more important than whether Wikipedia has two smaller articles or one bigger article. Wikipedia's readers expect reliability; they'll put up with longish articles and less than sparkling prose--A. B. 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles (book) is a substantially different article just 12 hours after I wrote the above. There's not much left to merge unless you go back to one of the earlier versions. Ste4k has edited her formerly meticulously footnoted article into some sort of parody.--A. B. 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Too many facts, based on incredulous sources like U.S. District Court rulings. OBVIOUS POV Ste4k 06:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I voted keep in the original debate, but the article has become a major POV fork. Again. Merge anything useful to ACIM and get rid of this. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Should these be Keep and Merge, as deletion entails removal of the content, not merging it? JChap 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Revert and Keep: Revert A Course in Miracles (book) to "Revision as of 05:47, 7 July", which contains useful NPOV and verifiable information. Delete duplicate content from A Course in Miracles, and move any remainder that relates to the book and is not found in ACIM (book) to ACIM (book). Leave a section header in ACIM devoted to an introduction of the book that links to ACIM (book) as a subarticle. (This will allow A Course in Miracles to be shortened to a more reasonable length.) Leave ACIM article for the Course's theological and philosophical interest with {{OR}} tag until references can be utilized. (If I type in "A Course in Mircles" in the searchbox, I will expect to find a detailed description of what A Course in Miracles is, which will be what the book says, not where it came from.) —Antireconciler 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I purposely left the material that was incorrectly merged into this article alone. The rest of the work was my own, and as previously stated, obviously a POV fork, whatever that is. I do not want any of my contributions to be associated with this topic at all. It has already been pointed out sufficiently that nobody wants to know the truth underlying this topic, and researching the matter has only generated accusations of bad faith, etc. Ste4k 15:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Surely, and I can appriciate your desire to not be involved with this topic. It has generated quite a few misunderstandings. It is because I understand the value of your contribution and your desire to bring facts and objectivity to this topic that it can't be fair either to you or the WP community to allow it to be simply deleted. The information you have collected at the above revision is neither a POV fork, not-notable, nor unverifiable, so it can't be fair to the community to simply revoke the information in virtue of your being the lead contributor. Again, I can understand not wanting to be a part of this project anymore, and not wanting your name associated with it. Can we agree, then, to allow the work to be viewed and understood as if were community-authored, and on its own merit? I think it is very important that we reach a decision that is fair to you and the community. —Antireconciler 19:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The past has already occurred. The future cannot be predicted. There are possibilities that neither of us can even consider at this juncture, which looking back upon, a year from now perhaps, we might both say to eachother, "Oh my, had we only had the wisdom not to print that." Hindsight has been granted us to realize how irrevocable the future might be. A truly neutral position is seen as despicable from all perspectives, being contrary to any of them. It is only your opinion that there is value to my contribution at this time. What I propose is as equally fair to me as it is to the community. Ste4k 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree that no one could write an article and have no motive and no conception about which viewpoint was the more truthful. Still, I think there is a difference between having a point of view while understanding and respecting the dissenting perspectives, and having a point of view antagonistic to dissenting perspectives. I can understand and respect your viewpoint and yet disagree, but for respect of it, want to talk about it. Discussion would surely be pointless otherwise. Similarly, there are a lot of things I've commited to print that I've later disagreed with, but for respect of it (and really myself), continue forward, willing to continue making mistakes for the sake of learning from them. Surely your viewpoint is not so antagonistic or despicable, else what would leave me here talking with you, totally unconvinced? —Antireconciler 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Merging two topics which are contentious to each other, which discuss different topics under the same name, only serves to provide more ambiguity rather than disambiguate the title. It would be better to provide the information in an article that is complete, and which has a better topic name, etc. The information that this article contained is not lost and will be re-introduced at such a time when it is more of a complete topic with better research. The article's existence under this name is misleading at best. Ste4k 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge into main article. JChap 17:19, 9 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Coyle

Page fails WP:BIO with 55, mostly irrelevant, google hits. {{prod}}'d, removed. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It appears to be a vanity article too. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy and delete. There's a redirect on the article creator's user page (Raid1wa) that goes to this article. It will need to be deleted as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - lists his High School amoungst "Important Match" locations and his family as his trainers. On the dates given for his matches he'd have been 14 and 15 years old. --IslaySolomon 14:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO. --Chris (talk) 13:26, 8 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 The JPS^{talk to me} 23:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aspen_Communications

Blatant advertising for Aspen Communications. I've written a bit on the issue on the James T. Chiles talk page. Both articles are essentially plugs for Chiles and Aspen communcations. Are Chiles and Aspen significantly famous or noteworthy enough to have articles? If so, please consider modifying the page so it is more neutral. Otherwise, if they cannot be salvaged, they should be deleted. Wikipedia shouldn't become an advertising space for businesses. Comatose51 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors' recommended actions

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Google reveals that there are quite a few "Aspen Communications" in North America; this one does not stand out as being particularly notable. (Going by Google, the one based in Flagstaff, AZ ([41]) seems to have the edge on this Texas corporation - however, that's for another discussion). Tevildo 18:40, 3 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: Speedily replaced with a redirect to DMB, as a possible link target. If you disagree with my reasoning, feel free to delete the redirect as well. - Mike Rosoft 12:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMB (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page already exist at DMB

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy G6 per nom. Tevildo 11:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-G6, redundant disambig page. Already tagged. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:40, 3 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domenico Tassone

Vanity article. Less than 300 google returns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbox1971 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 2 July 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't done this before. I will be more careful in future. Jackbox1971 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. "Productization" is a new one on me... :) Tevildo 11:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AlexDW 17:18, 3 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Final Fantasy VII Materia

The article is a gameguide (WP:NOT) list, it is not linked to anything, and it has no encyclopedic value. I attempted to merge it into the main materia article, but it was inexplicably reverted back. ~ Hibana 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is clearly game guide material. Explaining the concept of materia is fine, but there's no need to do much more than that in an encyclopedia. Ace of Sevens 17:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Is there an FF wiki? If so, it should be there instead. Tevildo 11:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, allow the FF cruft to be complete. —Pengo 11:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it was just a list of the materia and a general description of what they did, I'd be fine with it staying as a cruft dam. However, this is too far, and is game guide material, in violation of WP:NOT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. Allowing cruft to be complete is not the goal of Wikipedia. Proto///type 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I wonder if it's possible to transwikify this and all the other "game strategy guide" stuff to wikibooks. --ColourBurst 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it is not. Per a recent (May or so) decision by Jimbo, computer/video game strategy guides and walkthroughs are not suitable content for WikiBooks. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I love Final Fantasy and all, but this is quite adequately covered under materia. Penelope D 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Has anyone compared this article to any of the printed strategy guides for possible copyvio? Agent 86 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete from Wikipedia. Some bits are already in StrategyWiki and other bits might benefit from transwikiing... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I just copied over the stuff from this article that wasn't in StrategyWiki yet. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not gamefaqs etcetcetc +Falcon9x5 19:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AMHR285 ^(talk) 18:35, 6 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 Keep - CrazyRougeian talk/email 06:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microtel

Non notable hotel group per WP:CORP. Article created by repeat spammer. The article survived an earlier prod tag. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• As with Hawthorn Suites, redirect to U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc. if that article is kept, otherwise delete. --Allen 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the same reason I changed my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorn Suites --Allen 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There may well be reasons why this is a notable company, but those reasons aren't stated and there has been plenty of time now for the initial poster to have added something.--MichaelMaggs 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Large enough franchise to pass the corp guidelines. This should have appropriate cleanup tags, but I'm not sure deletion is the way to go. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete, as per Allen above. --AlexDW 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep they may get to be bigger in years to come.  Dure  (T)X(E)X(C) 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Their ranking by J.D. Power seems to satisfy WP:CORP. Does reasonably well on the Google test. Eluchil404 03:09, 8 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hit Channel

Delete: This is a false article. This has been started by a person called Paul Akinbola who has been posting made up stuff like this on internet forums (mainly Digitalspy and TV Forum) for the last 2 years. Recently, he's started using wikipedia to either start or edit articles to fit his fantasies in his past username Paul2001 (look at the CITV article for evidence of this) but he has done plenty of vandalism under the GMTV username as well. You only have to look at the Talk Pages of both users to see he's been warned plenty of times before. Effectivly, he makes something up, posts it on the message boards then creates or edits articles to fit what he posted on the message board (this article was created around 10 minutes after he posted on Digitalspy). James2001 22:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's one sentence about a TV channel that hasn't launched yet, and from the link on the article's talk page, never will launch. Thus, the single sentence is incorrect. If that's not deletion-worthy... then it should be. -- Kicking222 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crystal-balling about a TV channel that will never launch. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal ballism and possible hoax. Ifnord 14:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete don't look into my Cystal ball - it tells you nothing. --Charlesknight 15:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AlexDW 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "launched" in September 2006, nyuk nyuk. Danny Lilithborne 18:40, 3 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 nomination was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc.

Survived a prod. Article was created by repeat spammer whose sole contributions concern hotels linked to this group. Company is non notable per WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. 600 hotels built or under construction seems like a lot to me. No, it doesn't explicitly meet the standards at WP:CORP right now, but it's only a week old. I'd be surprised if there wasn't third-party coverage of this company somewhere. --Allen 15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Note that the company's web page claims 400 hotels rather than 600. Note also that the company is not the owner of these hotels! They are just a franchising company and sign deals with hotel groups. Pascal.Tesson 15:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Okay; I'll remove my vote; I don't understand enough about how these deals work. But if I were a business traveller, and there were Microtel and Hawthorn Suites hotels in a lot of the big cities I visited, I would expect Wikipedia to show me something if I typed those names in. Even if they're just a collection of hotels owned by independent groups, they would seem like a major hotel chain. --Allen 15:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm afraid that simply using the adjective 'noted' in the text doesn't make the subject of the article notable. There may well be reasons why this is a notable company, but those reasons aren't stated and there has been plenty of time now for the initial poster to have added something.--MichaelMaggs 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per original nom. Fails WP:CORP, no actual notability, and the article's just sat here for a while instead of being cleaned up. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. this is essentially a holding comapny for the two hotel chains listed in concurrent AfDs. The problem here is not the fact that no one has yet cleaned up the article, but rather the fact that the article itself is unneccesary. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, merge with Microtel] and Hawthorn Suites, with some fixes for POV problems. --AlexDW 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is part of one of the largest hotel operations in the world, as operated by the multi-billionaire Pritzker family. Choalbaton 04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete or merge. If kept, needs to be cleaned-up and expanded. 68.50.203.109 08:31, 9 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 - CrazyRougeian talk/email 06:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walken2008.com

Nominate. This subject seems to be handled just fine in the Christopher Walken article. Sahasrahla 12:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and allow organic expansion —Pengo 11:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to the Christopher Walken article. There really isn't much else that can be added here that's already here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, expand, and move to Christopher Walken for president hoaxes or something like that. I recalled this being in some news sources, and I was right, as Google and Google News searches show that reliable sources, including the Star, Canada's largest newspaper, have mentioned the hoax. "Walken for president" gets a surprisingly large number of Google hits. I would not suggest the article maintain its current form, however, as this is not the only web site purporting the hoax (most notably walkenforpres.com). But I think there is enough on the Net to make this into a full-fledged article (or, at least, a well-written stub). -- Kicking222 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable hoax website. This really doesn't warrant its own article. Wickethewok 14:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --AlexDW 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with Wickethewok, this does not need its own article. Just cover it at Christopher Walken if need be. Recury 01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Christopher Walken, no merge. There's already enough info present in his own article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax -- MrDolomite 05:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn hoax website. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:36, 4 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telugu Brahmin Surnames

This page should be deleted, as it is a random list of information (What Wikipedia is not) Sfacets 00:13, 3 July 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD-A1 - no context. Indiscriminate list of names with nothing to say why they're here or why this article is important. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete but not A1 - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Incorrect - Brahmins need to be recorded in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.47.130 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please do not blank the AfD debate - this is considered vandalism. I have restored your argument. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, and please do not remove other people's posts from my talk page. (Liberatore, 2006). 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. –Dicty (T/C) 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. utcursch | talk 17:21, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 14:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chapuis Freediving

Article promoting a school/style of Free-diving, but has no citations or independent references. Fails Wikipedia:No original research. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  11:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AlexDW 17:24, 3 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 nomination was delete all. The arguments for deletion are grounded in policy, and the keep arguments don't appear to have anything but game-fan-ism behind them. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry

This and the following pages comprise a guide on how to play Command and Conquer. Around 20 of these pages have already been deleted (see here, here, here, here, here (group nom) and here - another previous group nom that I thought had cleared them all up, but then I found yet more). So this is a mass-nomination of the few that remain. Wikipedia is most emphatically NOT a how-to guide - this is stated specifically in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - and as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General's Challenge (C&CG), this should be deleted forthwith. This is basically an abuse of Wikipedia's free hosting to allow someone to have images on their GameFAQs guide. Closing admin, please also note the vast array of dubious 'fair use' screenshots that are attached to many of these pages - these will need to be deleted should the articles be deleted. Proto///type 11:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note - I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

• • Soviet Union (C&C: Red Alert)
  • Allies (C&C: Red Alert)
  • Command & Conquer Red Alert Vehicles
  • C&C Red Alert Aircraft
  • Command & Conquer Red Alert Naval Units
  • Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative
  • Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative
  • Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative
  • Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  • Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  • Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  • Structures of the Global Defense Initiative
  • Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod

Whew! That is all. Note there are other C&C-related subpages that are perhaps unencyclopaedic, but these are the game-guide ones. Proto///type 11:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. jaco♫plane 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as nominator. WP:NOT a game strategy guide. Proto///type 11:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Also, there is an invalid argument against deleting these arguments on some of their talk pages (such as Talk:Command & Conquer Red Alert Vehicles - the user here indicates that "if you delete this, delete these because they violate the same guidelines/policies", when in reality, most of them don't). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Ever so crufty, not a game guide, etc... Wickethewok 14:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I had the unenviable task of closing the last one. It was over 150 items of crufty cruft, counting all the lapsed-fair-use screenshots. Here's to Proto for taking on the crufty menace. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. These C&Ccruft articles seem endless in number. Oldelpaso 15:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or perhaps Transwiki to an appropriate strategywiki / wikia project where it can be appreciated - some good content, and the "how to" elements are limited and could be addressed. Ace of Risk 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I know its pointless, but I will vote keep one last time. PS: Proto, you have misslabeled these pages as "how to guides". The pages do not tell you how to do anything, they only describe units and structures in high detail. TomStar81 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a game guide. These belong on an appropiate game wiki. Ydam 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All These pages are very important to wikipedia and should not be deleted. They are not how to guides. There are not strategy guides. They are not game guides either. They do not give the reader one strategy. They do not tell you how to pass a mission in the game or how to use an unit effectivly. They simply tell the reader that a unit in the game exists and describe the units. These articles are also not gamecruft. Wikipedia defines gamecruft as "a selection of content that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans." These articles are not of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans but to almost everyone who has even heard of the C&C games.--Taida 21:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• And HOW are these articles of any importance to "almost everyone who has even heard of the C&C games"? --Calton | Talk 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• It gives them very useful information on the units and structures and gives them a brief history of the "Command and Conquer" series.--Taida 17:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• The former makes it a game guide and the latter is in the main article. Try again. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• How does it make it a game guide?--Taida 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• What else could this information possibly be used for? Proto///type 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --TorriTorri 21:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. –Dicty (T/C) 22:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all These don't even pretend to be encyclopedic. WP is not a guide for gaming, and these aspects are not important/notable enough to merit their own articles. GassyGuy 22:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all of them. They're not game guides at all. - Richardcavell 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Really? Some quotes picked out, more or less randomly from one of the pages: Tiberium Refineries process raw tiberium, turning it into credits that a player can use to purchase new units and structures. Without a refinery a player's economy will slowly deteriorate until all credits have been exhausted...The tiberium refinery is only capable of storing 2,000 tiberium credits, therefore Tiberium Silos are used to store any additional tiberium refined in the facility....Orca pads allow for the construction of Orca aircraft. Without Orca pads any Orca aircraft returning to a GDI base will be unable to rearm itself. Sounds like advice to a player to me; i.e., a game guide. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is a great part in Plato’s Republic when Socrates confronts his opponent, who wants to be told what twelve is but does not want to here that it is twice six, or three fours; nor does he wish to be told that it is an odd or even number. How then are we best to present this information to him? Sometimes telling it like it is is the only way to convay a point. You also point out that these article are of no interest to anyone, but you have not cited a source for that information. Unless a source for you claim can be provided I am afraid it will have to be removed as per WP: No original research. TomStar81 02:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking Wikilawyering to a whole new level -- of absurdity. But for you, let's try to make this simple: let's divide the world into precisely two groups: those who own and play C&C, and those who don't:

• Those who own C&C: already have the game manual which contains all this information. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.
• Those who do not own C&C': have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.

• Total segment of world population that this article is actually useful for: none. The only possible group left would be those who lost their manuals and those who pirated their copies of C&C: the former group is very tiny and the latter group -- whatever their size -- can find assistance in their piracy elsewhere.

• Any questions? Or do you have any more bogosity up your sleeves? --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Tom, note that WP:NOR applies to articles, not discussions. Proto///type 09:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of that; I do not have occasion to check the AFD, nor am I particularly familar with its policies/guidelines. In lew of what I percieve to be two seperate personal attacks against me I resign myself from this page. If I have caused any of you to waste your time correcting my "bogosity" then I humbly apologize, as this was not my intention. Proto, although I disagree with you, I wish you Godspeed and good luck with your upcoming RTS AFDs. May there be mercy on us all for our sins. TomStar81 07:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of the quotes User:Calton picked out are not game guides. There are actual facts about the games --Taida 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's two non-sequitors in a row: 1) the quotes are not "game guides", they're advice to a player, such as one would find in a game guide. 2) Actual facts? Thank you for clearing up the matter for those who might have thought I was calling them fictional lies. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• The quotes are not "game guides" they are actual facts.--Taida 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying they're not fictional lies, though since I never claimed otherwise nor does their being part of a game guide somehow argues for their non-existence, as you seem to be implying. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• They are not fictional lies or game guides.--Taida 19:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. They're game guides, no matter how narrowly some are trying to parse the term, and if theye're not, they're of no interest to anyone who doesn't already own the game -- and who presumably have the owner's manual/strategy guide and don't NEED this to begin with. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- These articles are within their rights to stay, in my opinion. While it may be true that a good deal of the information within the articles are indeed "game specific," the "game specific" information is only there to detail the key differences between each vehicle/unit/etc. between each game. To reiterate, there have been a great deal of changes over the course of time to a lot of these units. For example, as stated, the GDI and Nod APCs eventually differentiated from one-another over the course of time, one becoming amphibious, and one being equipped with a drill for burrowing underground. But I digress.
  My point is that this information is here because people showed interest in learning the history of some of these units and equipment. Is that not what encyclopedias are for? Storing information and recalling it when interested? Go read an encyclopedia some time. I'm sure some of the "irrelivant" information you'd find there would turn your head. --Joseph Collins 03:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the lot of them. wikipedia is not a strategy guide. Keep the article on the notable software, take the rest elsewhere. Start a CNCwiki to hold it -- MrDolomite 05:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I second the motion of starting a "C&C Wiki," but don't second the motion for deletion. At the very least, not until a C&C Wikipedia has been established in a firm location. Then you can delete all you want. This information would, by that time, no longer be necessary to host here, afterall. --Joseph Collins 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that this information isn't necessary to hold here now. Wikipedia's an encyclopaedia, not a game guide, nor is it a holding bay for unencyclopaedic gamecruft while a suitable dumping ground is found. Proto///type 11:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, since we're on the subject, here's a few other things for you to complain about, mate. List of vehicles in the Halo universe, List of enemies in Doom, World of Warcraft items and equipment... I'm sure I could find more, but I think I've made my point. You give me five key differences between these pages and the accused Command & Conquer pages and I'll withdraw my Keep vote entirely. What have you got to lose? --Joseph Collins 10:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• If those pages are a problem for you, go here and follow the instructions. We'll wait for you. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• So where are your five key differences between these pages and those pages?--Taida 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey. Don't rile him, folks. I was trying to make a point, not nag him/bother him incessantly. Maybe it was a little out-of-line to have him "name five key differences," but in the end, I may have just shot myself in the foot. To make a long story short, Proto will be submitting those articles for deletion later on, seeing as they're "also unencyclopediac". He made note to put it in my talk page so I'd see it, instead of here, though. --Joseph Collins 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• So where are your five key differences between these pages and those pages? Did I offer any? Was that an argument I was making? --Calton | Talk 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• So you can't even find any differences between these pages and those pages.--Taida 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - not a how to guide.--68.32.11.74 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think you mean delete and also these articles aren't how to guides.--Taida 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough.Voice-of-All 06:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• They are all very notable--Taida 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry" are notable? Cured cancer? Written many books? Starring in their own late-night chat show? Has a seat in a national legislature? Subject of multiple non-trivial media coverage? --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• They did make it into the C&C games so I think they are notable enough.--Taida 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, the new Wikipedia notability guideline: if it's in C&C, it's per se notable. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't say articles not related to C&C aren't notable, I'm just saying the C&C games are notable. Also, I don't think there is a new Wikipedia notability guideline.--Taida 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The elitist snobbery being displayed by some is really Uncivil and against all Wiki is supposed to stand for. TruthCrusader 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Was there an actual rationale buried in that sputtering somewhere? The "against all Wiki is supposed to stand for" is particularly amusing, considering how many violations of WP:NOT this thing covers. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason why these pages should be deleted, they have not told me how to do anything. I personal think it disturbing that an admin would so blatently attack these pages when several members of this community have piched in to help improve them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.25.1 (talk • contribs)
• Mostly Keep Keep the unit lists. These are not game guides. They would be useless to soemone looking for strategies. They are descriptions of the units, no different than all those articles we have about Pokemon types and fighting game characters. The lists of allies and such don't really seem substantial enough to warrant their own articles and should be merged into a series list or their respective games. Ace of Sevens 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• And the information value of knowing the names of specific units in a computer game is what? If it's useful, it's a game guide, and if it's useless, it doesn't belong. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that a piece of information can be useful without being a game guide.--Taida 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• As do I. You could use that argument to call for deletion of almost anything. Things can be useful in other ways than a game guide way. Ace of Sevens 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• You could use that argument to call for deletion of almost anything. And if my grandma had wings she could fly to Miami. How, pray tell, does this statement address a single thing I said? Are you going to tell the rest of the class how this piece of information can be useful without it being a game guide? --Calton | Talk 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've never played any C&C game and I found it interesting informatation and a key part of the game. I'm saying that you seem to interpreting WP:NOT so broadly you could use it to delete any sort of video game information. The units of a real-time strategy game are important in the same way as characters of other works. It's the same way you can list the characters in Moby Dick without the article being Cliff's notes or mention that Tom Hanks lives in Hollywood without Wikipedia turning into a map to the star's homes. Ace of Sevens 16:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. These aren't like lists of minor characters in fiction. C&C units have no real plot development or personality. The Gap Generator will never be featured in an a saturday morning cartoon. A useless game guide is still a game guide. AMHR285 ^(talk) 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The gap generator is a valuable piece of technology that may one day prove to be useful. Also these aren't game guides, they are true facts.--Taida 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How are they true facts? You know C&C is a game, right? Proto///type 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I meant to say that the fact that it exists in the C&C games is true. I didn't mean to say it exists in real life.--Taida 12:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge. There's plenty of esoteric information on Wikipedia, just look at Category:Lists of fictional characters. I pretty much wrote the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games#Scope of information so I agree in principle that guide-like content has no place in an encyclopedia, however I am not convinced that this is the case here. Red Alert is a very notable game, and a descriptive article detailing the units found in the game seems to be a topic worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia in my opinion. WP:NOT does not apply in my opinion. I have not looked through the entire list of articles nominated for deletion, so if there is any guide-like information then by all means that should be transwiki'd to StrategyWiki. I also agree with Ace of Sevens that the number of articles should be cut down: I think most of the relevant information could be merged into a List of Command & Conquer Red Alert Units article. So, to summarise I would merge most of the content into one article, and redirect or delete the rest. jaco♫plane 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  I have not looked through the entire list of articles nominated for deletion - um ... don't you think you should? And a descriptive article detailing the units in the game is precisely information for a game guide. Your own guidelines (not a policy) state a general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. So who, other than people playing this game, would need this information? Proto///type 09:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I looked at about 5 of the articles, I felt that was sufficient. In any case I never stated that the WP:CVG guidelines were policy at all, I was merely saying that I agree in principle that game-guide content has no place in an encyclopedia. Regarding who might need the information, I don't see how that applies exactly. It's an esoteric subject area, so what? Wikipedia is full of these (Category:Lists of Power Rangers monsters) .. are you suggesting all such articles should be deleted? I agree that the number of articles is too large and they should be merged into a more compact list. Still, a description of the units found in this notable game is not game-guide content in my opinion. jaco♫plane 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. So what's the point? What is the connection? It is very unfair to delete all articles related to Command & Conquer and yet did not even bother about Blizzard Entertainemt's games, which has enormous articles? Is this a bias? Is this discrimination? IF you have problems with the game I suggest that you post on gaming forums or ask the game producers themselves. Yes, Wikipedia is not really a stategy guide (and I don't know what is the connection, anyway), and Wikipedia is not even a forum site where you express your emotions by deleting! --203.87.151.54 09:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  It's not bias. I just decided to start with Command and Conquer. I'm going to shift out some of the Warcruft next. Can you clarify your vote, please - merge to what? Proto///type 09:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Merge, as in all topics (i.e. infantry, armored) of a side (or faction) would have one article for that particular side, except for the technologies (i.e. Ion Storm) which will retain their status as one article. I hope you better fix the larger "problem" (Warcraft) rather than this! --203.87.151.54 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Delete Just deal with it all at once' You all said Wikipedia is not a strategy guide but you allow similar content

such as:

(Ginormous list of articles about games moved to the talk page of this AFD) Proto///type 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So keep it or delete all these pages too you stupid hipocrate.

Cs california 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, don't worry. He's getting to all that. I'm sure Proto appreciates you saving him so much time, though. I know I would. XD --Joseph Collins 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relax there, California-person. No need to get all worked up. Just because something is similar in content, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. For example, a list of weapons in Halo or the plot of Warcraft III is far more relevant to than lists of every single unit/structure/everything (of which there are very many!) in Command & Conquer. Wickethewok 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think I've ever seen someone try to attach a rider to an AFD. Heheh... Wickethewok 03:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I said to you on my talk page (where you posted the same message, but at least didn't call me stupid) - I can't do everything at once! Thank you for adding this list to my gamecruft page also. Proto///type 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. I don't get the point why these articles are being dealt first rather than those articles in Warcraft universe, for example. I am in support of lessening the number of articles by merging them by their sides/factions/groups (like GDI/NOD, Allies/Soviet, China/GLA/USA). I hope the nominator would prioritize the "bigger fish" rather than the articles that receives lesser attention, and I am eager to wait to see the the deleted articles of Warcraft first before proceeding to delete these articles related to C&C. Anyway, the reason of "Wikipedia is not a strategy guide is irrelevant since there are no connections of this argument to the article. I cannot support the deletion of this article because there is no definite argument in deleting these, even though with this invented reason. --Darth Narutorious 10:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  The presence of other poor articles is never an excuse for the existence of a poor article. Two wrongs don't make a right. C&C first, then I'm going to try and clear out the Warcruft. And if you think the C&C fans love their game guides, my goodness that will be fun. Proto///type 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for replying regarding my position! I agree with you in saying that, "Two wrongs don't make a right." However, why can't you correct the "other wrong" of you don't open up your concern on articles like Warcraft that you want to delete by nominating them as early as now? I also agree with what you say, which is, "The presence of other poor articles is never an excuse for the existence of a poor article." But why can't you start eliminating those "other poor articles" that you describe so that it would not be used as "an excuse for the existence of a poor article", in which I assume that the "poor article" you describe is this? This is contradicting to "C&C first, then I'm going to try and clear out the Warcruft." If you want to prove that these "poor articles" from a less famous game, like C&C be deleted first, then you should make a basis for that by making more famous game, like Warcraft as a concrete proof, rather than using a senseless, invented, and irrelevant argument as a proof. Note that I am not judging the fame of both games mentioned; however, it is evident that recent games like World of Warcraft and DOTA is more famous than the latest C&C games, Command & Conquer: Generals and Command & Conquer: The First Decade. I also want to grab the opportunity to suggest to you to delete the Defense of the Ancients article and DotA Allstars article since they are more of a "strategy guide" article rather than an encyclopaedic article. --Darth Narutorious 12:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to Admins: Please consider creating a wiki section for multimedia subjects such as Gaming subjects, Movie, and television series similar to wikitory and Wikiquote. These specific pages are allowed on answers.com and contains specific information which are consistantly developed in multiple games. This shows individuals have requested them since they are so common.

Cs california 02:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If you call this so called game guide then there are many thread like this so are you going to deleated them?. I dont see any point in deleting them. --SkyWalker 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Just make articles for the sides of the game and put everything of it. --210.213.69.112 04:24, 9 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 speedy keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood

Der loewe schlaft nie! Scarbor 11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator
• Keep; this nom is frivolous AfDs about Torchwood related articles. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but considering this editor's contribution history (which begins fifteen minutes ago and consists of nothing but these nominations), and nominations that simply state "the lion never sleeps" in German, I don't think I can possibly assume good faith. I don't know whether he really hates Doctor Who or something, but deleting anything that uses the word "Torchwood" is rather ludicrous, especially considering the obvious importance of said topics. -- Kicking222 11:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, blatant bad-faith nomination. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nominator didn't provide sufficient reasons for deletion. Actually, they didn't provide any reason. I'm closing this as a frivolous nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 3 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 speedy keep. Blatant bad faith nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood Institute

Der loewe schlaft nie! Scarbor 11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator
• Keep; this nom is making frivolous AfDs about Torchwood related articles. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but considering this editor's contribution history (which begins fifteen minutes ago and consists of nothing but these nominations), and nominations that simply state "the lion never sleeps" in German, I don't think I can possibly assume good faith. I don't know whether he really hates Doctor Who or something, but deleting anything that uses the word "Torchwood" is rather ludicrous, especially considering the obvious importance of said topics. -- Kicking222 11:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, blatant bad-faith nomination. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:56, 3 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 speedy keep. A bad faith nomination without any reasoning based in policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burseraceae

Der loewe schlaft nie! Scarbor 11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator
• Speedy keep I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but considering this editor's contribution history (which begins fifteen minutes ago and consists of nothing but these nominations), and nominations that simply state "the lion never sleeps" in German, I don't think I can possibly assume good faith. I don't know whether he really hates Doctor Who or something, but deleting anything that uses the word "Torchwood" is rather ludicrous, especially considering the obvious importance of said topics. -- Kicking222 11:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; this nom is frivolous AfDs about Torchwood related articles. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, blatant bad-faith nomination. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:56, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease

Contents of page (was originally [42]) already listed on Parkinson's Disease#Toxins. This article on the other hand is blatant link-spamming for a web forum. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Begin list
  1. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. With scientific articles this would require scientific references.
  2. Wikipedia is also limited by the potential article size. It therefore can not include all relevant information, but can refer to other web sites where more information is available.
  3. Wikipedia is limited by copyright as to how much information it can make use of from other sources.
  4. The most comprehensive source of information on the toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease is on the links provided. By linking to those sites rather than copying all of the information from it, the article enables references and more detailed information for those that want it, and is not in breach of copyright.
  5. The links are not to a commercial web site. The web site does not sell anything at all. So it is plainly erroneous to describe it as SPAM.
  6. Without links to the other web site or other web sites besides that, the reader is prevented from obtaining more detailed information and all relevant scientific references. --Johnson MD 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)