Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] June 12
- 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The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn -- Samir धर्म 04:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old Fashioned
A recipe for a cocktail. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Aplomado talk 23:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC) I'm voting keep now thanks to User:AnonEMouse's excellent improvements to the article. Aplomado talk 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipieda isn't an instruction manual. Now let me grab a drink. --Starionwolf 00:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There are Wikis for this sort of thing, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Reyk YO! 00:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Ted 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. If the article contained any information on its history or cultural significance, I would vote Keep (Martini, Manhattan, and others. Also, there is a "Wikibook bartending". Adambiswanger1 02:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jammo (SM247) 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. JIP | Talk 12:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Does this mean all cocktail articles are being removed? As there are many more less notable cocktails on the Wikipedia than this. Please show some consistency people. --DennyCrane Talk 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with deleting non-notable and newfangled cocktails, but this cocktail is fairly old, well-documented and well-known. The article discusses not only the recipe but the history. I think it's worth keeping. Phiwum 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki Edit it to "How to make an "Old Fashoined" cocktail and stick it on WikiHow. Matt 15:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Notable cocktails usually get kept. I'm rather surprised by the delete votes. Hell, even non-notable cocktails get kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocksucking Cowboy for a no-consensus keep on a recently created/named cocktail. Also check out the AfD for Garlic chutney below. I don't see how garlic chutney is more worthy than the venerable old fashioned. Erik the Rude 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Most cocktails aren't all that notable, but an old fashioned is very well-known. It merits an entry. GassyGuy 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable --Pilot|guy (roger that) 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep FireSpike 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC) If all the other cocktails stay, this stays.
- Comment: That's a terrible reason to keep something. Many times a well-meaning person will undertake a project to write articles about a number of related things, such as cocktails and card games. Then when somebody lists one of them for deletion, somebody inevitably cites "precedent." That's not a precedent on a free encyclopedia. When such articles have undergone review and have been determined keepable, that's a precedent. If there are other articles that are non-notable, they need to be deleted too. Aplomado20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. One of the most famous cocktails. See Martini (cocktail) for a view of how much can be said about these drinks. --JJay 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weakest of weak MOVES. Title leads one to expect an article on the concept of being "old fashioned". Request move to "Old Fashioned Cocktail" and transwiking of JUST the recipe IF it is notable enough. Morgan Wick 23:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as notable cocktail. A good article can be written on this. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as a notable cocktail. jgp 07:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. WP is not a recipe book, however one defines a "notable" cocktail. Tychocat 10:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite. The article should focus on the history of the cocktail, not its recipe. AnonEMouse (squeak)
- Strong Keep- it's perfectly reasonable to keep this as an article but make it less of an instruction manual. It's a notable drink and it should be included in an encyclopedia. -Fearfulsymmetry 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Look, if it's a notable cocktail by all means keep it, but someone needs to at least assert notability in the article. It seems like many in this discussion are just saying "well I think it's notable," which isn't good enough. Aplomado talk 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have a point, sir. So I did as you asked. One source, a New York Newsday columnist, no less, actually calls the "Old Fashioned" the first drink to ever be called a cocktail - that seems pretty notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Look, if it's a notable cocktail by all means keep it, but someone needs to at least assert notability in the article. It seems like many in this discussion are just saying "well I think it's notable," which isn't good enough. Aplomado talk 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, now that the nominator had voted keep. — 199 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Rewritten article clearly estabilished notability. Eluchil404 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per second comment by nominator. Sophy's Duckling 00:44, 18 June 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 per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nextservices
Delete advert. Googlespam was removed. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete - looks like an advert. NB: Creating editor liable to remove templates! - MightyWarrior 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Kalani [talk] 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 00:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement of a non-notable company. Ted 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons already provided. DVD+ R/W 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Not Deletecompany meets the Notability criteria (#1):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28companies_and_corporations%29#Criteria_for_companies_and_corporations it's on independent media: 1) Detroit News: http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051206/BIZ/512060337/1026 2) Inc Magazine: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/priority-immigration.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suthrum (talk • contribs)
-
- Comment. The standard is "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". One of the links is about two companies, including this one. The other is about the owner, barely mentioning the company. Fan1967 05:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, it's still advertising. --Coredesat 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 12:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Fan1967's comments. Pls delete it; I wrote the original article though the intention was not advertising. A similar wiki is Eclerx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suthrum (talk • contribs) .
- I proposed that one for deletion as well. Looks too minor. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unencyclopedic, reads exactly like an advertisement/spam instead. --Pilot|guy (roger that) 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as the author is requesting deletion. Aplomado talk 21:22, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lodipe Starbase
Wikipedia is not a database of info about MMOs digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 00:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Google returns no results. Kalani [talk] 00:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. has little to no encyclopedic value. DVD+ R/W 00:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia isn't game guide. --Starionwolf 00:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, non-notable, no Google results [1]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Adambiswanger1 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Have a look at the article - to even understand things like the location section, you would have to be already playing this game, and then you've got the game manual and fan forums to help you. JIP | Talk 12:20, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kaveh Farman-Farmaian
This article reads like a badly translated obituary. The only thing remotely approaching notability asserted is the company he founded. Delete Reyk YO! 00:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Google returns 2 results. Kalani [talk] 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD:A7; tagged it as such. -- Captain Disdain 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- ...tagged it again, as the tag was removed by another editor because of the AfD process. Articles get tagged for speedy deletion during AfD all the time, and there's nothing unusual or wrong about that. -- Captain Disdain 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD:A7--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, this fails A7. --Coredesat 04:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and WP:NOT a memorial Ydam 11:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- We already have an article about this man at Kaveh Mirza Farman Farmaian. Merge any useful information there, and redirect. - Mike Rosoft 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- ...which doesn't really assert notability, either, as far as I can tell. I don't really see how that changes anything. Sure, his dad was a big name, but unless there's something we don't know, at best, that nets this guy a mention in the article about his father. -- Captain Disdain 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that the following paragraph:
- ...which doesn't really assert notability, either, as far as I can tell. I don't really see how that changes anything. Sure, his dad was a big name, but unless there's something we don't know, at best, that nets this guy a mention in the article about his father. -- Captain Disdain 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- ... he founded Niala Co., which became the representative of Braun AG, Bolex and Hasselblad in Iran. He was the chairman of AEG-Telefunken, Merck Darmstadt AG and Osram Phillips in Iran. He was a founding member of the Irano-German Chamber of Commerce and a founding member of the board of the Iranian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Bank for Industrial Development.
-
- constitues a claim of notability; perhaps not a sufficient one to warrant an article on Wikipedia, but it is definitely enough to avoid speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 06:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment- that's why I brought it here rather than speedying it. Reyk YO! 06:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you're right. I don't really see how this makes him very different from any other businessman, but it's also possible that I have an unreasonably high threshold of notability for businessmen. =) I'm certainly willing to change my vote if someone can explain why this is significant. -- Captain Disdain 11:27, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Antioch Chronicles
I don't think fan-made campaigns for StarCraft warrant an encyclopedia article. Some (unsourced) assertions of notability are made, but there's nothing to indicate that the Antioch Chronicles were ever well-known outside a small circle of StarCraft devotees. Reyk YO! 00:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Ted 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Adambiswanger1 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. Locke777 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable fancruft. --Coredesat 04:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, doesn't have encyclopedic value. DVD+ R/W 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete too fancrufty Ydam 11:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable game campaign, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WHAT'S AN ANTIOCH CHORNICLES? --typhoon 05:37, 14 June 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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Www.shoptogive.us
Initially, just copied site description (with permission of owner) but was too ad based and not objective. Changed to be a simple description of the website and what it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.10.209 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 June 2006 Still an advertisement for an NN website. Morgan Wick
- Strong speedy delete per nom, should be speedied soon.--Andeh 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete,
per abovebecause what is said here can be said in the Livestrong wristband article, although the {{afd}}, {{prod}}, and {{db}} tags don't all need to be on this page. Choose one. joturner 01:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Changed it to be less advertising...what else should be changed to make it better? Instead of deleting....MODIFY!!! Help out ppl are new to wikipedia—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.10.209 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Appears to be so new that google hasn't found it. Can't find a whois record. No Alexa, obviously. Thoroughly fails WP:WEB. - Fan1967 01:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Site is over a year old and adding it to wikipedia would OBVIOUSLY help to get exposure...you people seem all too eager to stop any way to help find a cure for cancer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.10.209 (talk • contribs)
-
- Comment. Wikipedia is not a bulletion board, and does not exist to help gain exposure for an otherwise unknown enterprise, no matter how noble its motivations. Fan1967 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment/Delete I was the one who listed this, though an anon replaced my original rationale with the above. After speedy, prod, and advert tags were added, someone then changed the content to not be copyvio, and removed all three tags. Therefore the copyvio speedy tag no longer belongs (as the anon's statements above state, it never did, hence my non-reversion of it), and when someone else re-added the tags on top of the AfD one (I had already applied the advert tag) I removed the prod because you're not supposed to re-prod, hence this AfD. Morgan Wick 01:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Something smells very, very wrong here. There used to be a charity site, shoptogive.com, which no longer exists. shoptogive.us totally fails any google search at all. Nobody's ever heard of it, including the livestrong website, that supposedly benefits. Fan1967 01:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The site does exist, in case anyone's wondering. Morgan Wick 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yep, it exists, but I sure wouldn't want to give it my credit card number. Fan1967 01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Shop to Give US, could it be any more blatant? Speedy Delete, NN for sure, SPAM for certain, SCAM very likely. ~ trialsanderrors 02:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "Adding it to Wikipedia would help get exposure" -- that proves the point. NawlinWiki 01:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Ted 01:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Fan1967 point re http://www.livestrong.org not having an obvious link to this org. Also there us nothing on the front page (or any privacy policy page) with any sort of certificate visible for verification of who owns the site, nor official recognition from Amazon. David Ruben Talk 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Add one more suspicious fact. Website DNS address resolves to nfrance.com, a free webhosting service. You'd think a legitimate charity would use a real commercial provider, in the US. Fan1967 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB, no Alexa ranking [2]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment why is this still here?--Andeh 03:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the text to reflect the findings here until an administrator kills this off. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I changed it back, because I think that version is more likely to be deleted. If you want to restore the old justification, use the deletion notice. I'd also leave a message on the talk page of an admin who is known to be available during this time of Sunday night. Morgan Wick 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Speedy Delete: If these guys go down, while they have a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia is gonna be blamed for promoting them. Deathawk 04:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Deathawk. --Coredesat 04:30, 12 June 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. Kusma (討論) 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chigger (slang)
Since I transwikied this dicdef, it's been prodded, deprodded, retagged for transwikification, replaced with a soft redirect to Wiktionary (which didn't work because the transwiki process was not completed on Wiktionary's end), replaced with text, re-replaced with a soft redirect -- to which text was added, then removed, added again, then removed again, added yet again, then removed yet again. TheProject 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Harvest mite per new information regarding the reference.Delete as neologism. If anything, it only deserves a mention in List of ethnic slurs. joturner 01:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is chigger (slang) not chigger, which rightfully goes to a disambiguation page which refers to the harvest mite. joturner 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Kjkolb before someone deletes the AFD tag. ;)
Redirect to Harvest mite per Captain DisdainCheers --Starionwolf 01:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC) - Delete as neologism. Ted 01:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Captain Disdain and Starionwolf. Delete for reasons given above. DVD+ R/W 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Delete, good point Kjkolb. DVD+ R/W 03:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Redirect to Harvest mite, as they're also known as "chiggers", as mentioned in the article. -- Captain Disdain 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Oh yeah... There was that "(slang)" in there. Delete, of course. Sorry, my bad. -- Captain Disdain 08:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I forgot about them harvest mites. --Starionwolf 01:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've never seen so many strikethroughs on a single AfD... this AfD is being thrown about more than the original article was! TheProject 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Don't redirect, as Chigger is the North American layman's term for Harvest mite, not a slang term.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete as a neologism. A redirect is inappropriate because no one is going to type or link to "chigger (slang)" when looking for mites. The chigger article already has information about the mites. Also, according to the chigger article, it refers to more than one type of arthropod, so a redirect would be inaccurate unless disambiguation was added to the top of the other article - "chigger (slang)" redirects here, for other uses, see chigoe flea. -- Kjkolb 03:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete, neologism, inflammatory. --Coredesat 04:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete I have heard the term and I doubt it is a mere neologism, but it probably isn't notable enough to be more than a dicdef here. Jammo (SM247) 05:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete as adequately covered at list of racial slurs and as a highly unlikely search term for a redirect. This, however, is not a neologism, as it has been around for at least ten years. Furthermore, an "inflammatory" article title is never a reason to delete an article, as long as the article itself is respectful and npov. youngamerican (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect The entomological sense of "chigger" should be kept under its own page or a general page like (Insects- pests of the Midwest USA, or something). As for "chigger" in the slang sense, it should go under the general slang page. Blintz 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per TBC and others. Chigger already covers the more common 'slang' definition. Eluchil404 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I started to improve the article - it was kinda a mess. It's still a stub, but I think it has potential. It's a very notable issue with Asian Americans and Black people in a lot of urban areas. ENpeeOHvee 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not really notable enough term to warrant its own article.--Auger Martel 11:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Auger Martel and merge content as appropriate to disambig and/or lists.--Chaser T 20:58, 17 June 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 by User:CambridgeBayWeather - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ml75
in Dutch, but 99% sure its an advertisement. its nice to know that somebody in the Netherlands listens to hiphop V. Joe 01:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. This web forum's Alexa rank is 268,423. --Metropolitan90 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. Artikel een Nederlands. De taal Engels --Starionwolf 01:46, 12 June 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 WP:CSD#A7. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greg kaufman
Not a notable person for encyclopedic entry SkaTroma 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD:A7; tagged it as such. -- Captain Disdain 01:36, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alex school rankings
Delete as original research. mtz206 (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. It isn't even cool or interesting. Ted 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find any sources. --Starionwolf 01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Definitely original research. Delta 01:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OR, maybe WP:NFT, name suggests it's a bad knockoff of Alexa Internet rankings. BryanG(talk) 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty ingenious, although it doesn't clarify whether the seats have to be filled or not (UC Berkeley, I'm looking at you). Delete for WP:NFT and all the others. ~ trialsanderrors 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR, WP:NFT, and WP:HOAX. No google results [3]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:OR. --Coredesat 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, OR and an Alex ranking of 0 (0 seats / 9 faculty). Jammo (SM247) 05:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. Also, it doesn't even make sense. Spirit-oriented is not necessarily the opposite of academic-oriented. --דניאל - Dantheman531 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's entirely useless and original research. Grandmasterka 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Virtually everything is original research.--Auger Martel 11:53, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Clements
Biography of un-notable person --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, have a look at http://engweb.gre.ac.uk/cm34 to see where I am currently at.
Just because it is late now in UK and I have an important meeting tomorrow, I can't afford to wade in here, so be patient. ty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dojjey (talk • contribs)
- Delete vanity article. --JChap 01:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Completely non-notable.Ted 01:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO. DVD+ R/W 01:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nonnotable, sorry NawlinWiki 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The only thing that pretends to be notable about him is his band, and even that ghets only 20 Google hits. Wiwaxia 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh ye of little patience..... give a man some time at 02:47. Have I taught you before? I guess not. Goodnight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dojjey (talk • contribs) .
- Delete per DVD R W and others. Gwernol 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Textbook case. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --mtz206 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete can't see anything super special about him to be on wiki.--Andeh 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:BIO.--Dakota ~ 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, NN, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO. --NMChico24 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy and delete per all above; vanity article; to quote the editor's original edit summary, (Ego is the best explanation I guess). Paddles TC 08:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per self admitted vanity. Just manages to avoid A7 but notability isint enough. Ydam 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as no assertion of notability. bikeable (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:BIO--Auger Martel 11:54, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wynyard Woods
Towns yes. Villages yes. Housing estates? NN in my opinion NawlinWiki 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. I can't even find an "offical" homepage for the estates. --Starionwolf 01:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete completely non-notable. Ted 01:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Only link is from a disambiguation page. BryanG(talk) 02:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. Pointless. Paddles TC 08:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per precedent for NN housing estates Ydam 12:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. It appears to just be spam for a real estate listing. [5]--Elonka 04:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is not paper, and not all information is linked to the web. Snugspout 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Davril2020 02:20, 17 June 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Juban's Restaurant
Advertisement for a non-notable restaurant --דניאל - Dantheman531 02:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement for non-notable (although possibly great) restaurant. Ted 02:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Coredesat
- Delete WP:SPAM and not even enough context to be a proper advertisement. Jammo (SM247) 05:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleteper nom and TBC. Creole-style SPAM is still SPAM. Paddles TC 08:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- This article now qualifies for speedy delete G7 author request as the article's author and sole contributor blanked the page in this edit, which was reverted by a bot. I have db-author'd the article. Paddles TC 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, blatant, shameless advertising. JIP | Talk 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, advertising. To coin a phrase : BAM! -- Docether 14:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please feel free to delete this page: it was created in error, and was meant to go on a more specific wiki on another site entirely. The person who wrote it was confused and thought we had asked her to write on wikipedia, which we did not. The confusion has been cleared up, and there should hopefully be no more problems in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.96.36 (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mary G Peterson Elementary School
Delete because elementary schools are NN - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Much as I like Susan Stamberg, her former elementary school is non-notable. Ted 02:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Chicago Public Schools--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable. joturner 03:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Agent 86 05:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Chicago Public Schools. Redirects are cheap. BryanG(talk) 07:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per strong precedent for all verifiable real K-12 schools as seen at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005. The nominator doesn't seem to have any real reason for the nomination. Deleting this school would make Wikipedia look highly inconsistant. Deletion should not be random. --Rob 07:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it is well established that schools are notable. Markb 07:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete there's a precedent that high-schools and above are notable, the consensus on elementary schools is to delete. -- Eivindt@c 07:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- What basis do you have for saying that? Can you list some elementaries, that were deleted by consensus, which were verifiable real schools, with no copyvio, and no attack content? I've given links above, that show elementaries are in fact normally kept (unless you go back a fair bit in time). --Rob 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Elementary schools are not notable. DarthVader 08:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep and expand per nom. 81-year old school, with at least 1 famous alumni to boot. Just because it trips the line of notability as an elementary school (as opposed to high school and above) should not be grounds for deletion. Kimchi.sg 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Chicago Public Schools People looking for this school should be directed to a relevant article. Just having a famous alumni doesn't make the school notable in itself Ydam 12:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rob's statements above.--BrownHornet21 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kimchi.sg, who gets a big cookie for actually advancing a logical argument why this particular school article is worthy of retention, rather than beating the dead horse of inherent notability, which is a non-argument in my opinion. Kudos to Kimchi.sg!--Isotope23 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but add stub template, per Rob. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Schools, of whichever kind, are not worth the trouble of creating an AfD for. Every school article I have seen here has been kept. As much as I disagree with that myself, it is a fact that the English Wikipedia community considers schools (including elementary schools) to be inherently notable. JoaoRicardotalk 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I beg to differ. Only high schools and above are guaranteed keeps. Kimchi.sg 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- That was my impression also. After all, Wikipedia:Schools was rejected. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't even agree that high schools are guaranteed keeps. Given that Wikipedia:Schools was rejected, any and all school articles ought to be judged on their own merits, and not some myth that all schools are inherently notable. Agent 86 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- That was my impression also. After all, Wikipedia:Schools was rejected. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Only high schools and above are guaranteed keeps. Kimchi.sg 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect — While I favor keeping valid High School pages (because they can be the final school attended by those who don't go on to college, and because of the overall maturity of the attendees and the sentimental memories created at that level), most Elementary and Junior High School pages can be merged into their respective school district. Particularly if they are only a paragraph in length — RJH (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rob and Kimchi.sg. Stu ’Bout ye! 18:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rob and Kimchi. FireSpike 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rob and Kimchi RicDod 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Could also merge. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There is nothing against WP's rules about a school being NN. Those who disagree should disagree in the proper context, not on AfD. --Ephilei 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. nn, whether or not it's a school. Tychocat 10:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable school Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because elementary schools are N. Silensor 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. ALKIVAR™ 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs expansion, not deletion. -- Usgnus 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep Another random nomination with no good reason given. CalJW 05:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable. Golfcam 17:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth, elementary schools which can be verified are notable and worthy of documentation on Wikipedia. Bahn Mi 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep, most schools are notable. bbx 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Strong precdent for schools to be included. Subject of utmost importance.--Auger Martel 11:55, 17 June 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 -- Samir धर्म 04:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dropping knowledge
Promo, advertisement, may or may not be notable; Wikipedia is not a web directory. No vote - I'm just listing this to see if others think this is a candidate for deletion KleenupKrew 02:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and cast a delete vote. This looks like a project that may or may not become notable in the future, but notability is not established right now. Wikipedia isn't the place to establish notability. KleenupKrew 11:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep may need a fix - but the project is in its nascent phase and is alot like Wikipedia itself- give it a chance. check it out - pretty interesting organization. It will be notable soon enough. [michelemichele 13 June 2006]
- Wikipedia isn't a publicity device. If the organization is "in its nascent phase", it's probably got a while to go before it becomes notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like an interesting organization. However, the article is a blatant advertisement. Notability is not addressed, but it would be a tough sell. Ted 02:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ORG, WP:SPAM, and WP:NEO--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I'm undecided on whether this deserves an article or not, but the lack of references to the organization suggests that it may not be all that notable. If the article is kept, though, a rewrite will be necessary, as the current revision gave me absolutely no clue what "dropping knowledge" was, besides perhaps "an intercultural platform", "a non-profit organization", or "a global initiative and open-source platform". Zetawoof(ζ) 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete without prejudice. Notability is uncertain, but it looks like advertising with inherent POV problems. If organisation is notable, I think it would be better to start off with a clean slate than trying to rework the current article. Paddles TC 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but maybe needs a fixer-upper. dropping knowledge, i have determined through sme outside research, is in fact real, and seems to be a culmination of knowledge from around the world. People put forth their information, and questions are answered. HEY! That sounds a lot like Wikipedia!!! Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The organization seems real and their objective seems nice, but alas, it is not notable. Alexa ranking of 363,880 and 86,500 Google hits, that's few for something web-based. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what should be notable. JoaoRicardotalk 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The article is written in first person, clearly suggesting advertisement (ex: "Where do we get our answers?"). --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatantly an advertisement. Sophy's Duckling 00:46, 18 June 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. Sango123 15:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ribbetts
Advertisement for nn restaurant in Australia --דניאל - Dantheman531 02:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless claims of notability made. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Tasty ribs, possiby. Notable, unlikely. Ted 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM. Only 415 Google results [6]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Mere restaurant, claims to universal recognition in Brisbane seem to be wishful thinking. The Story Bridge and Brisbane City Hall are Brisbane icons, not this one. Jammo (SM247) 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as spam. Not really notable in Brisbane. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. WP doesn't need home-delivered spam. Paddles TC 08:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I live in the same city, and I haven't heard of it despite its supposed infamy. --Grace 00:30, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Allaboutsouthpark
Delete Non-notable fan site that fails WP:WEB. Prod was removed without comment. Gwernol 02:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fancruft. Do us all a favor and speedy it. Ted 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete not notable site @ piczo, spamarama.--Andeh 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged as CSD with {{db-club}}. Kimchi.sg 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Paddles TC 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this page and Add the web site as an external link on the South Park page.BrownHornet21 13:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn Computerjoe's talk 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Alan 01:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, preferably speedily. --Yamla 19:13, 15 June 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. Sango123 15:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Omnigeek
Delete per neologism --דניאל - Dantheman531 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Was not aware that neologisms are disallowed. Sorry. --Blckleprd 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Only 514 Google results [7]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Ted 02:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete neologism. Jammo (SM247) 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I don't think it's even valid enough for wiktionary. Paddles TC 08:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the new word that has not been verified. --Starionwolf 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 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 Simon Pinnington and redirect The Way of the Cross to Stations of the Cross -- Samir धर्म 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Simon Pinnington and The Way of the Cross
A composer who fails the notability test. Apparently, "His music is self-published," he has no allmusic.com listing, less than than 700 Google hits including WP and mirrors, and it smells like vanity, being written by Pinners (talk · contribs). I've included The Way of the Cross in this listing, one of his compositions, which is "currently in progress". Dmcdevit·t 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. As nom mentioned, only 638 Google results [8]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete him per above. Redirect the other to Stations of the Cross as Way of the Cross does. Fan1967 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Madman 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete first, redirect second per nom and Fan1967. Paddles TC 08:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep both notable. Composer of music not intended to be popular Fg2 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Question. How can an uncompleted composition be notable? Fan1967 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- No Opinion on the first. Redirect on the second. Works in progress are generally non-notable and/or unverifyable, see WP:NOT. Eluchil404 19:55, 14 June 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 -- Samir धर्म 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amiga Games Database
Non-notable website Barrylb 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 1803 [9]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. --Starionwolf 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Borderline speedy-A7? Paddles TC 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a famous site for game reviews, even if isn't updated very often. JIP | Talk 12:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. Also advertisement. Tychocat 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I think this website is notable. I would think an Alexa ranking of 1803 is quite high, most of the websites that have been deleted per AfD have had rankings in the ten-thousands, if not even lower, or none at all. This website was one of the primary sources for List of Amiga games (see its talk page) and serves as a good resource for Amiga game reviews. And about the claims in the article that are seen as advertising, they are there to assert notability. JIP | Talk 12:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JIP. Green451 03:37, 19 June 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 withdrawn by nominator. – Will (message me!) 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Melaleuca (company)
Delete per WP:SPAM--דניאל - Dantheman531 02:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Big improvement. --דניאל - Dantheman531 14:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article is not spam, it is a well-known MLM company, Wikipedia has [34 entries on other well-known MLM companies], the article is written in a neutral tone, and a disambiguation is needed between melaleuca and melaleuca (company). Show a little restraint. The Crow 02:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Additional notability info:
- Inc. 500 list of fastest-growing companies contains Melaleuca in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 [10]
- Forbes 400 list of 400 richest Americans contains Melaleuca CEO Frank L. VanDerSloot in 2004. [11] [12]. The Crow 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Melaleuca is a member of the Better Business Bureau with a satisfactory record.
- Keep (changed with new evidence)
DeleteCouldn't find any evidence of press coverage that would do it under WP:CORP.--Chaser T 02:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- WP:CORP states: "A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Google shows 412,000 hits for "melaleuca company" and even the most casual examination shows that many of them are obviously independent of the company. Melaleuca is also more notable than many of [the other 34 entries on other well-known MLM companies] I understand you may not have had time to do a lot of research in the 7 minutes between me creating the article and you voting to delete it; please give it a bit more consideration. The Crow 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Google does return multiple hits for "melaleuca company," but it seems as though over half of them say that this company is behind scams and fraud. This is certainly something that should be noted in the page. As of this moment, I maintain by vote for deletion. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have 2 comments for that... (1) So you've googled it and found numerous allegations of fraud. Good. So you can see that notability is satisfied per WP:CORP by being mentioned by multiple independent sources. (2) If you've found something that should be noted on the page... well, anybody can edit Wikipedia, why don't you? The Crow 03:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're the expert, that's why. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm don't claim to be an expert on this company. I just created the stub because I saw a need for it. I am not affiliated with the company in any way, shape, or form. I neither endorse nor discourage it. I am aware of it because I know a few people who have been involved in it. The Crow 12:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're the expert, that's why. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have 2 comments for that... (1) So you've googled it and found numerous allegations of fraud. Good. So you can see that notability is satisfied per WP:CORP by being mentioned by multiple independent sources. (2) If you've found something that should be noted on the page... well, anybody can edit Wikipedia, why don't you? The Crow 03:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Google does return multiple hits for "melaleuca company," but it seems as though over half of them say that this company is behind scams and fraud. This is certainly something that should be noted in the page. As of this moment, I maintain by vote for deletion. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Crow, you have
sevenfive days until this AfD closes. If you find evidence of notability from non-trivial published works then I will change my vote. No point in arguing with us about it and filling up this AfD page.--Chaser T 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've added more notability info in my keep statement above, please refer to that. The Crow 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleteas non-notable unless evidence of importance is provided, like revenue and number of employees. Like porn actors, MLM companies have inflated Google results because of search engine spamming and also because of promotion/complaints/lawsuits by employees. There is some evidence that it is a scam - complaints, lawsuits and the fact that extract from the melaleuca tree has no proven health benefits. A company whose business is completely fraudulent has to be pretty big and/or scam a lot of people to be notable. -- Kjkolb 03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- Weak keep based on rewrite. -- Kjkolb 10:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per WP:CORP Adambiswanger1 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CORP. The presence of similar articles on Wikipedia does not necessarily validate particular articles, but may also point to the possibility that those articles are also flawed and merit deletion. Inclusion is not a criterion of validity, as anybody can create a page about anything here. Jammo (SM247) 05:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Weakkeep Based on Danielrocks' comments, I think the organisation does meet WP:CORP, although maybe not in the way they'd like. I'll add in a couple of references to detractors which should help with NPOV. Paddles TC 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- Delete Not even notable for the allegations. Dlyons493 Talk 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Agree wioth Kjkolb that it is probably a scam full of quackery, and that MLMs lend themselves to manipulative promotions like Google-bombing. Still, the mention in Forbes suggests that this may be more noteworthy than others. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article establishes notability. But it should have some mention of the fraud accusations. JoaoRicardotalk 17:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- If there's any legitimate accusation of fraud from a non-trivial source, by all means include it. We've included the brief passing mention from Quackwatch. MLMWatch doesn't seem to mention it at all. There's some grumblings on message boards and individual attack sites but those aren't really reliable or substantial sources. As I mentioned before, the company is a member of the Better Business Bureau with a satisfactory record so the fraud accusations have already been a suitable amount of space, in my estimation. The Crow 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Crow, I fail to see why these sources that are "are obviously independent of the company" (your response to my first vote) aren't reliable or substantial sources of fraud accusations.--Chaser T 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Saying a company is fraudulent is much more serious than saying it is notable. Accusations of fraud should be held to a more rigorous standard of reporting than that required for accusations of notability. At any rate, a company's questionable business practice is not a criterion for deletion; if you'd like to discuss the validity of fraud accusations then post them on Talk:Melaleuca (company) where I've already started a heading on this particular subject. The Crow 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Crow, I fail to see why these sources that are "are obviously independent of the company" (your response to my first vote) aren't reliable or substantial sources of fraud accusations.--Chaser T 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- If there's any legitimate accusation of fraud from a non-trivial source, by all means include it. We've included the brief passing mention from Quackwatch. MLMWatch doesn't seem to mention it at all. There's some grumblings on message boards and individual attack sites but those aren't really reliable or substantial sources. As I mentioned before, the company is a member of the Better Business Bureau with a satisfactory record so the fraud accusations have already been a suitable amount of space, in my estimation. The Crow 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as company has been around for about 21 years (according to their website (it's a flash page, so I can't point you directly to it. Just go to this page, click on "What is Melaleuca?", then on "About Us"). Definitely notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the above statment. This article has been written in a neutral tone and I feel that it has met the criterion listed in WP:CORP. Whether or not the company itself is a fradulent MLM is not for us to decide and should have no bearing as to the legitimacy of a corporation's notability. In any case, the company itself has been around for some time and has been noted in other independent resources, such as the above mentioned Forbes articles, thus making it of at least some sort of notability. Presidank 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete POV, most notable for allegations of fraud, notation of which is soft-pedaled as innocuous complaints. Tychocat 10:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article has been heavily rewritten to make the allegations of quackery, etc. stronger and more prominent, with references to reliable sources throughout. In light of this, I'd ask everyone to reconsider votes based on POV. There's not much more for notability, though I did turn up a newspaper article.--Chaser T 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. notable. you dont have to like multi-level marketing, but it meets the criteria of notability Joan-of-arc 02:03, 14 June 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. Sango123 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Pardus Enemies
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about MMOs. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 02:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 02:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom though the phrase "inexperienced space maggot" will remain in my mind for hours. Locke777 03:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's a shame because it looks like the author worked hard on it. Adambiswanger1 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Starionwolf 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (note the proliferation of Pardus fancruft articles appearing just now). Jammo (SM247) 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Yeah, I just saw them. Wierd. --Starionwolf 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Paddles TC 09:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hawk Family of Fighters
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about MMOs. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 02:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 02:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 03:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Starionwolf 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (note the proliferation of Pardus fancruft articles appearing just now). Jammo (SM247) 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Paddles TC 09:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 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. Petros471 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cosplay Lab
Non-notable website. Barrylb 03:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. fails WP:WEB. No evidence of notability Adambiswanger1 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Barrylb --Starionwolf 04:06, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Taekido
I propose that this article be deleted because it discusses a non-notable martial art with no substantiating information beyond that put into the article. It's a vanity piece and deserves to be treated accordingly. --Scb steve 02:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looks like a copy-paste job from another site. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's copied from here. Fan1967 04:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It looks like a nn mashup of taekwondo and aikido, likely taught by only one person worldwide (two, if he's got an assistant). Zetawoof(ζ) 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Copyvio process. Clear copyvio of [13].Paddles TC 09:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- Abstain The version at the time of the AfD is a clear copyvio of the page Fan1967 mentioned, however I've found an earlier edit (over a year old) that doesn't suffer the same problems. AfD left intact and links/categories updated. Paddles TC 09:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Question Is this going to be deleted now? --Scb steve 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good question. The people (including you) who have made recommendations so far can alter their recommendation if they think the page is now worth keeping, or can leave their "vote" unchanged. As things stand, the consensus is still to delete. The reversion I did only addresses the immediate copyvio problems, it doesn't do anything to resolve the question about notability. I continue to abstain. Paddles TC 14:55, 16 June 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. Petros471 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Garlic chutney
Uncyclopedic perma-stub. Not really needed, and not much has happened since it opened for business in 2004. Mysekurity [m!] 03:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Expand, don't delete. So what if it's always been a stub? It still has useful info. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -as above. Artw 03:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not to pick on Mysekurity (no offense intended), but I think that the tendency to go searching for deletion candidates, the tendency to captiously scour articles for notability shortcomings needs to stop. How is an article on Garlic Chutney hurting Wikipedia? Is it pushing the Garlic Chutney agenda? We need to focus on the articles that really need to be deleted. And again, Mysekurity, I apologize, since I am unfairly using your nomination as an example of a much larger trend. Adambiswanger1 03:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment yes, I'd like to see this article have less of an obviously slanted Garlic Chutney POV...I'm kidding of course.--Isotope23 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article could be really useful if someone wrote up a recipe in the Wikibooks or something and then linked to it from the article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per nom, could be useful for those looking for Indian and Pakistani fare. And an article's stubbiness has never been a good factor is assessing deletability. Kimchi.sg 11:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A fail to see why this deserves an article any less than chutney itself does. Many reasons given in the nomination are not valid eg: lack of edits and permastubbness Ydam 12:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: What is so notable about garlic chutney that it deserves its own article, rather than a subsection in the main chutney article? Does it have particular cultural significance? Does it vary much depending on where it comes from? Is it actually quite different from all the other chutneys? If so, then the article should be expanded to explain this, and if not then I would suggest it should be merged, just like anything that makes a stub on its own but fleshes out another article if used as a subsection. Confusing Manifestation 14:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Apparently the Chutney article has sub-articles for specific kinds of chutney. Personally, I'd like to see all of these boldly merged back into the main article as it isn't all that long... but until that is done the information should still be kept.--Isotope23 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Garlic Chutney does appear to be the only sub-article. What appear to be sub articles for mango chutney, lime chutney etc... are actualy links to lime, mango etc... Artw 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Speedy Keep. Needing to be expanded is no cause for deletion. jgp 07:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete dicdef. Tychocat 10:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to the Chutney article. I don't think it merits a stand-alone article as there isn't enough info or separate notability. But the article has good info, is more than just a recipe, and also provides encyclopedic info on geographic variation. All good things. Plus, it fits into the Countering Systemic Bias project. WP:CSB. Interlingua talk 02:15, 14 June 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. Sango123 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miss Singapore
Delete. This article is about a beauty pagaent that does not exist. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--SomeStranger(t|c) 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above.--Andeh 03:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Disambiguate or Redirect to Miss Singapore Universe. This is clearly a common search term. ~ trialsanderrors 03:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete poor information. Redirecting is also fine by me. Adambiswanger1 03:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Singapore Universe, especially since that page says that Miss Singapore redirects there. fuzzy510 03:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Fuzzy510, although I see a case for turning the page into a disambig if the other Miss Singapore paegents get their own articles. hateless 07:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per all above. Disambig only if one of the other paegent pages is created before the AfD ends. Paddles TC 09:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Disambiguate or redirect per Trialsanderrors. No sense in having an article only to say "it's called Miss Singapore Universe, not Miss Singapore". JIP | Talk 12:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect TheKillerAngel 12:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect as per Paddles.Ted 14:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Miss Singapore Universe as already suggested above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect, speedy? --Vsion 00:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect — it's basically a soft redirect now. Grandmasterka 06:44, 14 June 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. Sango123 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TalkShoe
Spam article on non-notable website Artw 03:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 1,052,188 [14]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per TBC Adambiswanger1 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons given by TBC. DVD+ R/W 04:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zanvas
Non-notable website Artw 03:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SOFT and WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 279,936 [15]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per TBC Adambiswanger1 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per TBC. DVD+ R/W 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per TBC. It's hard to argue for notability when the software is still in beta! Paddles TC 09:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Exactly what happens to this article (merged or not etc) doesn't need AFD to decide. Petros471 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oniket Prantor
Is every single music album in the world going to have its very own page on Wikipedia? The admin who closes this AfD may kindly delete its redirect page of Aniket Prantor as well. Regards, ImpuMozhi 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above. ImpuMozhi 03:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The band is apparently notable enough to have a page, and I see no reason why the album shouldn't be as well. Delete this, and there's a LONG list of albums that would go as well. fuzzy510 03:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say delete, but I'd say that about a substantial majority of the albums that have their own articles. Then again, this one doesn't say anything about the album, so it's pretty much listcruft. Opabinia regalis 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep. If the band passes WP:BAND, there's no reason why the album should be deleted. BoojiBoy 04:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Question: to clarify: every album by an admittedly notable band can/should have its own page? Every single one? Opabinia regalis 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm not familiar with the band, but this nomination seems soley based on deleting a majority of album article. Deathawk 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is the same argument used in defense of the other Artcell album. The band has established its notability. A separate article for this album is the only logical location for detailed information on the album itself as well ast track listings. Both David Bowie and Rod Stewart has separate articles for 22 of his albums. Rod also has seperate articles for several of his singles. To use a less-popular example, the band Iced Earth has 7 articles on its albums, many of them stubby tracklistings like this one. So, the precedent has been set that if a band is notable enough for an article, so are its albums. Adambiswanger1 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Artcell, without prejudice. If the article had more about the album than just a track listing, then I'd be inclined to keep - on the basis that once the notability of a band has been established, there is no harm in having an article per album, provided the article actually contains useful content. Paddles TC 09:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- As the article currently has information on label, where it was recorded, producers, musicians, and other worthwhile information, does this mean that you're more inclined to keep? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Artcell, and likewise redirect any album or single article which is nothing more than a track listing. If you can't say anything more about the album than "was an album by *band* with these tracks" it's not worth being there. Confusing Manifestation 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not that your position is the standard, but since this album provides significantly more than a tracklisting, does your opinion on this article change? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, given that the additional information is merely credits apparently mostly copied from the liner notes, no, especially if none of the people/places/things mentioned in said credits is notable enough for their own article (if, say, Mick Jagger or George Martin had had a hand in making the album, my vote would shift to Weak Delete or maybe even Weak Keep). Confusing Manifestation 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- So your rationale, in fact, has nothing to do with the information, but the who? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I, personally, am not concerned with the amount of information on the article. That can always be added later. The fact is, this page is the only possible place where a tracklisting could go. Adambiswanger1 17:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it is pretty standard practice that albums by performers meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria are suitable material for standalone articles.--Isotope23 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Question: Did they? (Meaning, did they pass an AfD? ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment, nobody has ever brought Artcell to AfD. Assuming good faith, Artcell meets WP:MUSIC (and they do appear to under clauses covering touring as well as prominent representative of a notable style...)--Isotope23 13:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Merge to Artcell; there's nothing wrong with an article on an album as long as it's actually an article. As it stands this is just some basic information without context / reviews / commentary on larger social significance. When such information is added, it can be recreated as its own article. Ziggurat 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable band, so the album is also notable. Merging album info, even if there is little else beside production notes and track listings, would lead to long, unwieldy band articles. An exception could be if only one album was released. --Joelmills 04:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn, no context. Tychocat 10:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Adambiswanger1 and Joelmills. Spacepotato 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The first progressive rock band in a country of about 140 million people? That sounds notable to me. Again, I've never heard of them, probably will never get one of their songs BUT BUT BUT to use my own preferences to make AfD decisions would fail to work as part of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias: WP:CSB. Interlingua talk
- 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. Sango123 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Autoconstruction (2nd nomination)
This might be a bit controversial, the last AfD having only concluded mere days ago, but that had no consensus, and I've since transwikied this. TheProject 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is obviously just a dictionary definition. I've never heard anyone use this term in this way and the Google hits seem to be mostly in French, but if Wiktionary wants it, that's cool. We don't need it. Opabinia regalis 04:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dicdef. Has been transwikied so delete. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 04:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete dicdef (technically, if we follow the roots, this should mean a house that builds itself...or a person that builds itself...) Jammo (SM247) 05:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above: bare dicdef. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom/Opabinia/Srikeit. Paddles TC 09:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above Adambiswanger1 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Yours Truly as an article about a real person which does not assert the notability of its subject. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vlad Mazek
Distinctly non-notable - there are very many Microsoft MVPs for example. BlueValour 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete resumes go on Monster.com Opabinia regalis 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and Opabina regalis. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. DVD+ R/W 04:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Starionwolf 05:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom - WP:CSD#A7, MVP and heading a local user group is not an assertion of notability. Vanity, article author has not made any other contributions except for a now-deleted image for this article. Paddles TC 10:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure what "vanity" has to do with this. We'll delete the article; we don't need to insult its author as well. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:05, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Construction safety officer
Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete a construction safety officer is a safety officer on construction sites?? My mind is blown! This isn't even a definition. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- No kidding. --דניאל - Dantheman531 04:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete I hope the guy who wrote this wasn't a safety officer... Adambiswanger1 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A lawyers' definition. Jammo (SM247) 05:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Opabinia; this is absolutely pointless. Paddles TC 10:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- What does the atractive young woman in the cubicle have to do with the article. Even if she is a CSO , sitting in offices is not a distinctive part of their work. Oh and Delete, btw. Eluchil404 19:25, 15 June 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. Petros471 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Onno Shomoy
Is every single music album in the world going to have its very own page on Wikipedia? ImpuMozhi 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above ImpuMozhi 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The band, Artcell, has established its notability. A separate article for this album is the only logical location for detailed information on the album itself as well ast track listings. Both David Bowie and Rod Stewart has separate articles for 22 of his albums. Rod also has seperate articles for several of his singles. To use a less-popular example, the band Iced Earth has 7 articles on its albums, many of them stubby tracklistings like this one. So, the precedent has been set that if a band is notable enough for an article, so are its albums. Adambiswanger1 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Artcell for same reasons as given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oniket Prantor. Paddles TC 10:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, and the answer is yes; it is pretty standard practice that albums by performers meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria are suitable material for standalone articles.--Isotope23 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable band, so the album is also notable. Merging album info, even if there is little else beside production notes and track listings, would lead to long, unwieldy band articles. An exception could be if only one album was released. --Joelmills 04:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The first progressive rock band in a country of about 140 million people? That sounds notable to me. Again, I've never heard of them, probably will never get one of their songs BUT BUT BUT to use my own preferences to make AfD decisions would fail to work as part of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias: WP:CSB. I think that a comparable band in the US (or Japan or Germany or Brazil) would not have its albums submitted to an AfD discussion because each of these countries, more so than Bangladesh, has a certain inherent apparent notability among many people in the world....but that's systemic bias. Interlingua talk 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Adambiswanger1 and Joelmills. Spacepotato 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this is notabel enough here erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 01:23, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Faction Rank
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about MMOs. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fancruft supremo. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fancruft. Jammo (SM247) 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Paddles TC 10:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, gamecruft. We're not a Pardus playing guide. JIP | Talk 12:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. More articles about Pardus? --Starionwolf 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Annabelle Chvostek. – Will (message me!) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1am to 5am
Google returns 5 non-Wikipedia hits, none of them notable, and therefore unverifiable. AllMusicGuide doesn't have anything on this album, nor any other verifiable place. Mysekurity [m!] 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete, I verified the claim above, and sure enough, this is a vanity page. Please delete, and thanks. -Monk of the highest order 05:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Annabelle Chvostek, without prejudice. Article can be recreated if there is any content worth including; at the moment it's pointless. Paddles TC 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- no delete, popularity in search engines shouldn't be a criterion for inclusion. The page in question is one of four albums in a discography. I'm still waiting for the track listing and cover art from the artist. --ghoti 13:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- no delete, I bought this in cassette format from Annabelle after a show in a Montreal club many years ago. I'll see if I can find it and add "track" information. Should I scan the cover and send somebody the file? (I don't know how to upload files.) Re Paddles' comment, I don't know about "pointless", the page is a stub, after all. 69.197.234.217 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- To upload a file, you must be logged in (you can register on that same page). Once logged in, go to Special:Upload and follow the instructions. --Mysekurity [m!] 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Does appear to be vanity/almost vanity. I'd be OK with a redirect. Wickethewok 14:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Paddles without prejudice against recreation. Without so much as a tracklist this is a pointless article. If anon or anyone else substantially changes the article before the AfD is completed, send me a message and I will consider recinding my opinion. Please note though, the track listing needs to be verifiable from reliable sources.--Isotope23 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per Paddles. Currently there's almost no content. --Zoz (t) 19:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added the track list -- Annabelle Chvostek herself emailed it to me. As it was a cassette release and not CD print, it was fairly limited distribution. She says she's preparing to release these trackes on iTunes (which she's already done with some of her other albums), and is considering a CD re-release of this album. Does the existence of the track list remove the incentive for deletion? (I'm still working on getting album "cover art". If the person who bought this cassette from her years ago in Montreal still has it, could you scan it an upload the file?) --ghoti 01:03, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lowndes Associates
Delete. nn. fails WP:SPAM. --דניאל - Dantheman531 04:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jammo (SM247) 05:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; clearly vanity spam, author is User:Lowndes. Paddles TC 10:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Spammage, nothing more. SmartGuy 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It reads like an advertisement. Not a notable site either. 'nuff said. --Starionwolf 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 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. Petros471 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of comic and cartoon character pairs
Doomed to be incomplete and too unwieldy to be useful; using categories for articles about character pairs is probably a better solution. —tregoweth (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete. Lists like these are problematic and would require someone to constantly update them. They're more work than they're worth when there are other articles out there which are much more useful to the public. -Monk of the highest order 05:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am leaning towards keep, assuming the editors of the page get some facts straight e.g. Statler & Waldorf, for unless they were adapted into some cartoon, methinks they were Muppets. Jammo (SM247) 05:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete per nom and Monk OTOH. As Jammo said, the list has multiple problems - e.g. Jay and Silent Bob are further off-scope than Muppets are! Paddles TC 10:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per admin Tregoweth. --Starionwolf 20:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Categorize per nom. Preserving this list as a category will satisfy the needs of anyone needing this info. --Joelmills 04:24, 13 June 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. Petros471 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robin Cody
Delete. nn writer. --דניאל - Dantheman531 04:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:N. Has three published works and the two external links there are far from 'trivial'. Therefore, it fulfills WP:N and should not be deleted. However, might need some fixing up...perhaps a stub template? Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I added a writer-stub. --Starionwolf 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable enough (even having one book published is pretty notable, let alone three)--SomeStranger(t|c) 00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, appears to be very notable in Oregon, which is good enough for me - see, that's why Wikipedia is better than a print encyclopedia. In the external links, one of his books has just gone into a second edition and is being called "seminal". --Grace 01:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Petros471 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Celebrities who denied their Punk'd Broadcasting Rights
Delete. Totally pointless page. --דניאל - Dantheman531 05:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. That doesn't even make any sense, as it's entirely out of context. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. the list is obviously connected to Punk'd, where there are two other pages that are extensions of the main article. If there's some guideline or rule which the page violates, please let me know, because it's not obvious. hateless 05:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ---Charles 05:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete a) The title makes no sense and b) assuming this information is true, the Punk'd page can be where it is kept. Jammo (SM247) 05:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nonsense, and assuming it is verifiable, then perhaps place the notable information on the main article. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Ok, I am entirely confused by people's reactions here, because it seems I'm the only person here who gets what the page about. The people/groups listed are folks who have been subjected to a prank by the producers of the TV show Punk'd, only to deny the producers the rights to air the footage of the prank. If that is true, then it should go through cleanup or merge, but not delete. Now if I'm wrong, and there's a finer point somewhere that I failed to acknowledge, again please let me know. hateless 05:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Most of the info is already in the entry for the show, and the rest is either unverified or (in the case of Finch - read the reference link) completely fake. fuzzy510 06:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge a list that is (mostly) sourced, I must be having a dream! But this will fit neatly into Punk'd no problem. -- Eivindt@c 07:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Punk'd per Hateless and others; this does not need a separate page. Paddles TC 10:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. No need for its own page, but it has sourced info that is not in the target article. youngamerican (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or Keep+Rename. I think it could either stand on its own with a better title and better context or simply merged into Punk'd. Amalas =^_^= 14:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge in to Punk'd. This is a subsection of the article at best, not an article in its own right. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. Pointless on its own. 23skidoo 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, per Youngamerican. Reyk YO! 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Punk'd. Not sufficiently long for an article on its own, and better presented in the context of the show. Ziggurat 01:53, 13 June 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 move to Brandi Alexander. Petros471 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brandy Alexander (wrestler)
NN per WP:BIO; garners a 326 on ye olde Google test. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete per above. Not quite notable enough. DarthVader 09:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Actually her name is spelled Brandi Alexander google link and if you google that, you'll find many more results. It should however probably be moved to Brandi Alexander.MikeH411
- Move to Brandi Alexander per Mike. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and move per above. Stu ’Bout ye! 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I shoulda kept up with this after instigation. Agreed, move. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Move to proper name.--Auger Martel 11:56, 17 June 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. Petros471 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lightning safety
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "...while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." Deltabeignet 05:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep/merge, the content of this article is important. Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform? If the page has to be removed, at least merge it with lightning. Max naylor 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, merge anything that isn't compromising into articles about lightning, perhaps redirect to lightning itself. Jammo (SM247) 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seems like a merge and redirect to lightning is appropriate. --Carnildo 05:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect This reads too much like a guide which wikipedia is not. There seems to be some salvagable information here though that could go in to lightning. People searching for Lightning safety should also be taken to Lightning. Ydam 12:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Ydam. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 16:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Agree with above on this one. It doesn't need its own article. --Pilot|guy (roger that) 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per above and verify claims. --Starionwolf 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article was spun out from lightning in August 2005 and works fine as a stand-alone piece. --JJay 21:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Ydam. Voice of Treason 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the lightning article is 46K long and does not need to be bigger. Merging would be a bad step. This more than a how to and is fine to keep and then clean up. Rex the first talk | contribs 23:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and reduce the "safety" section in Lightning to a briefer summary. --Allen 23:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this article doesn't quite read like "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes" although it could use some work to make it even less so. Serodio 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
God, you guys are pathetic. Yes, let's spend all our time deleting anything that might be useful! Strike out every last bit of helpful advice! Meanwhile, articles elsewhere teem with mistakes and shameful disorganization. You must all be very proud of yourselves. Anonymous 198736 07:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep and please do not insult other participants here it is very rude Yuckfoo 01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That's rather rich coming from someone whose username is a euphemism for "fuck you." Anonymous 198736 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Yours Truly as a copyvio of this. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] QuizKey
Non-notable company which makes a equally non-notable software. Only 433 Google hits, [16] and I haven't even bothered to sieve out the relevant ones. With no assertion of notability per WP:CORP, delete as advertising. Almost forgot to mention, prod contested without explanation. Kimchi.sg 05:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete under WP:CORP guidelines. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyright violation. I've tagged it db-copyvio. If the speedy delete fails, I still vote delete per nom. Paddles TC 10:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, you won't, because AfD is not a vote. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:04, 12 June 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. Harro5 09:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Global Watcher Network
Delete. I don't understand what this page is exactly. From what I can gather, it sounds like an advertisement. --דניאל - Dantheman531 05:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete under CSD:G7. Author blanked page. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- speedy delete as above. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a copyvio. JIP | Talk 12:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pristine Faith Restoration Society
Vanity, possibly an ad written by a member of the society and it's totally cut and pasted from the PFRS website [17], also this article does not assert notability for the organization. Dspserpico 06:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete copyvio religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 08:36, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gregor Craig
It's a well done hoax. No such player listed on DAFC official website or anywhere else I can find. Presumably a real Dunfermline supporter and mate of the article's author. Jellyman 06:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unless any evidence can be shown that this isin't a hoax. Ydam 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a hoax, no info on player listed anywhere else I can find. -- DrunkenSmurf 19:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I can't verify the hoax either. --Starionwolf 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A fan - check out [18]
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] River Rock Casino Resort
Delete, this page is an advertisement for this casino.--דניאל - Dantheman531 06:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Big improvement. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I wrote this article and was definitely not intending to advertise for the casino. Can you please tell me why you feel it seems like an advertisement? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note: I fixed some of the wording... I still don't think it's an advertisement for the casino. If you can elaborate on why you feel that way, it'd be helpful... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This page seems like an advertisement because it contains only information promoting the casino. Perhaps if more information was provided such as crowd information, history of the casino, etc. it would seem less like an advertisement and more like an objective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielrocks123 (talk • contribs)
- Well, the casino is fairly new (about 2 years or less) so history is really hard to dig up at this point. Also, what do you mean by "crowd information"? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- For instance, how many people come each day? What parts of the casino are popular? Danielrocks123 07:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- While the number of visitors can probably be found somewhere, wouldn't the second part be original research? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, although I will agree that this information might be difficult to find.
- While the number of visitors can probably be found somewhere, wouldn't the second part be original research? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- For instance, how many people come each day? What parts of the casino are popular? Danielrocks123 07:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Danielrocks123 07:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually, after some research, "difficult" is an understatement. The casino opened late 2005, so it's close to impossible at this point. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. Anyway, it seems like the consensus is that this is a notable topic, so good work. I'd suggest adding to this article, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be deleted this time around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielrocks123 (talk • contribs)
- Well, let's wait and see. As for any additions, I honestly don't think it's going to be that much more possible until the casino's one-year anniversary rolls around. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. Anyway, it seems like the consensus is that this is a notable topic, so good work. I'd suggest adding to this article, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be deleted this time around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielrocks123 (talk • contribs)
- Actually, after some research, "difficult" is an understatement. The casino opened late 2005, so it's close to impossible at this point. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Daily attendance and what parts are popular have never been included in casino articles that I have seen. What is generally allowed for a new casino is a list of activities that provides ideas on where to expand the article over time. But at some point I stongly beleive that this section needs to be dropped when the rest of the article is in good shape. Given that the current article is almost past a stub, not much needs to be done other then filling in the blanks, like in the infobox. Vegaswikian 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Keep, advertisement allegations aside, it's a notable topic. _dk 07:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I'd say "largest casino in British Columbia" is a fair assertation of notability. BryanG(talk) 07:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral on this one for now -- I live in Vancouver and the fact that I know about the casino could well reflect a geographical bias. Biggest casino in BC is a fair assertion of notability, but is it enough of one? (And does the fact that they found a body there a month ago add to its notability in any way?) TheProject 13:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've added that, and tagged the article as a current event as the body (which was not at River Rock but may be related to a person last seen there) has yet to be identified. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - the fact that the 2006 Gemini Awards will be presented there provides a strong notability case in itself -- Tawker 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but clean the article up and make it sound like less of a PR statement. SmartGuy 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per TawkerBot, er, Tawker. lol --Starionwolf 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advertisement. Tychocat 11:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not an advertisement. CalJW 05:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I cleaned this up some more so it should be a shorter but more encylopedic article. I dropped some of the rumorish stuff and movd things around and added the standard infobox. Vegaswikian 22:55, 16 June 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. Sango123 15:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opo
Neologism Koffieyahoo 06:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kalani [talk] 06:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 09:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP is not for things you made up after school one day. Paddles TC 10:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete from the article recently created. Wikipedia should not be used in an attempt to coin or popularise things. (if only we could make that more clear to people creating articles) Ydam 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:NFT. "Recently created" obviously translates to "I just thought of this". JIP | Talk 12:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Hel-oPo-, pluze delete the non notable word article. --Starionwolf 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this and make redirect to Hokianga which deals with the real Opo in some detail. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete/redirect as per BL. I'm mildly surorised we don't have a page on Opo the dolphin, but it is covered on the Hokianga page. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jamie Morton
Delete, NN, possible vanity page, can't find anything to verify most of the information in the article. The IMDB entry is for an actor born in 1993 [19]. The movie Silent Scream is in IMDB, but Jamie Morton is not credited [20]. "Jamie Morton" and "Raindog" on a google search yields 2 hits, one on wikipedia [21]. "Jamie Morton" and "Silent Scream" yields 5 hits, 2 on wikipedia [22]. Nobunaga24 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 09:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- 'Delete unverifiable, nn. This page may also be an elaborate hoax - Googling the name turns up references in Danish movies, entirely not mentioned in the IMDB citings. Not enough detail in Danish references (or knowledge of Danish) to determine what's going on. Tychocat 11:24, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1260 years
WP:OR WP:V WP:WEB Apparently-original Rapture theology. John Nagle 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a new form of Rapture date-setting, from one web site. Wikipedia generally requires more notability than that. --John Nagle 07:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to be notable. DarthVader 09:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. "Woah, isn't that scary?" Not if your article is unsourced and non-notable original research (and if I cared...) Grandmasterka 09:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There are plenty of other WP articles on Christian eschatology, that are more comprehensive and better written. This one doesn't add anything useful. Paddles TC 10:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Intervals of years are inherently notable. We should instead create 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years ...Delete, of course. TheProject 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- Weak Keep and improve - this is actually a notable, though theologically errant, interpretation of scripture. There are a great many cults who claim that their cult is the only True Christian (tm) group. So you take the year your cult was founded, subtract 1260 from it, find some magic event that happened in that year, say that this event started the great tribulation and that your cult is ending it. But at any rate, though this is a poorly written article about the subject, it is notable, it is not date setting, and it is not the product of one person's imagination. BigDT 13:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Crikey, original research with one link to a proselytising website. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as for the link to the proselytising website, I have been WP:BOLD and removed it. BigDT 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If the content is notable, it will stick somewhere in the Rapture article, if not, it'll be edited out. Doesn't merit a separate article. NawlinWiki 21:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - this doesn't have anything to do with the rapture. People who believe that the 1260 days are really years do not even believe in a rapture. Merging these two would be like merging pork chops with vegan because they both talk about food. BigDT 04:29, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ancient Treasure Hunters
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}} |
Contested prod. Proded as "Non-notable camp, with only 61 Google hits." by User:Kimchi.sg. Delete per proder. Eivindt@c 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
- A deletion of this page was proposed because of only 61 hits on the Google search engine. However, the summer camp now caters to hundreds of campers and merits its own page, explaining to people what the camp is and/or does.
- This page is not an attempt to spam or advertise the camp. I have used Wikipedia for almost as long as it has been around, and I have seen article of far less relevance been allowed to stay. Wikipedia is after all - an Encyclopedia, and in order for an Encyclopedia to be truly complete, (especially an online type of this nature) it should be able to carry an article of relevance for the people.
- Ancient Treasure Hunters is currently in midst of talks with television networks to create a reality series based on the camp. In fact, NBC has created a reality series called 'Treasure Hunters' and this has increased exposure of our camp becuase of people typing in the terms 'treasure hunters' into their various search engines.
- We have received numerous emails requesting a short description or explanation fo the camp, and since I have always turned to Wikipedia as a valuable source of information, I feel that the same ability should be made available, that people can search their encyclopedia which can explain what the camp represents.--Joshua 07:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- All that may be true, but there are no other sources I can find that back up your claim; hence it is unverifiable.
- "In fact, NBC has created a reality series called 'Treasure Hunters'...", unless the series mentions the camp by name, it bears no relevance on the camp's notability.
- "this has increased exposure of our camp..." - Statistics and sources for the figures?
- "We have received numerous emails requesting a short description or explanation fo the camp,... I feel that the same ability should be made available, that people can search their encyclopedia which can explain what the camp represents." - I feel that your website can do the same thing better, and in more detail.
- Delete as original prodder. Kimchi.sg 07:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
- You posted your reply in less than 8 minutes from the time that I posted my statement claiming that you can find no other sources to back up my claims. What vast sources and resources did you try to use in those 8 minutes? Are you a 12 year veteran of the camping and summer camp industries, and as such have a vast working knowledge of the summer camp industry, including historical literature from conventions and/or industry statistics from trade publications? Because if you are not, then I am not certain what credibility your statement holds, or why exactly you should even think that you have the ability to verify it. And of course, because you are not the above, what right do you have to even make a statement or have an opinion on this article's deletion? (no harshness intended)
- Reply to your 1: The relevance is, that because our summer camp program bears such a similar name to the reality series, people are getting confused between the two. We want to make sure that when a person searches an encyclopedic source for the term Ancient Treasure Hunters, that they do not think that we are the NBC specific reality series.
- Reply to your 2: I have been involved with the camping and summer camp industries for over a decade. I have attended trade shows, subscribe to industry publications, have close ties with many travel related summer camps and travel agencies all over the planet. I know the attendance histories of over a dozen travel related summer camps, and I also know their average daily inquiries - by date. By comparison to theirs and our own historical statistics, our inquiries have increased by almost 40%. This is a tremendous surge.
- Reply to your 3: Our website does explain it better, and in much more detail. You can view it yourself to see what depth we go in to. The fact that the page we posted in Wikipedia is so short and brief should be a testemant to the fact that this is a legitimate and informative post only. --Joshua 07:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: "Are you a 12 year veteran of the camping and summer camp industries...?" I am not, but an ad hominem will not save your article from deletion. I thought you would have a better tactic than to start off questioning all and sundry who dares to ask you this very simple question: "Is there anybody else, besides Wikipedia, who think your summer camp program is worth writing about?" - which is what our verifiability policy requires. Your long reply, despite its length, has not addressed this crucial question at all. If the answer to this question is "no", then well, it shows that no one else cares about your summer camp program, even if all the info about it is true. So why should we? Please, add to the articles during the five days in which this discussion, convince us otherwise. As for "This is a legitimate and informative post" - yes it may be, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
- Lastly, please do not write a new '''keep''' everytime you make a comment. We know to discount multiple votes from the same person. Kimchi.sg 08:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. 27 google hits, about fifteen relevant, all spam. I could not find one independent review, comment or mention. Mr Stephen 10:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no notability established in article, google does not find notability. Sorry, a summer camp is not notable in the encyclopedia sense of the word. Weregerbil 10:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Per all of article creator's comments. Wickethewok 14:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article doesn't state what is notable about this camp, relative to all of the other Summer camps available in the US. Can the author state what makes this camp notable in the article itself, please? If no such information is forthcoming, a delete vote would be in order. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Joshua. I find nothing 'delete-worthy' about this article. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 16:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a free host, blog or webspace provider. --Starionwolf 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
aeropagitica - I will add information about the summer camp program to help show what is notable about the camp. Please understand that the reason it was originally kept brief, was because I did not want anyone to think that this was spam, or some kind of self glorification. But now that I am more familiar with Wikipedia's way, I will add information that shows why the program is unique. --Joshua 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr Stephen - the camp and summer camping industry is not your typical industry and statistics, articles are not yet as common on the internet. Camps do not get much press, and they don't put out many press releases. Clients are usually obtained by targeted direct mail pieces, and this will explain why you will not see much in the way of 'reviews' of camps. However, you may note that we are a member of the National Camp Association (www.summercamp.org).--Joshua 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Kimchi - a. 'ad hominem' - I was not attacking anyone. In fact, I even put in afterwards '(no harshness intended)' to avoid anyone thinking that. I stated the facts, that only someone who is knowledgable in the camping and summer camping industries would have the ability to make the statements he was making. b. I do believe that there are those besides Wikipedia who would think that our camp is worth writing about. In January for instance, Hadley Lewis of the Boston Parents Guide wrote an article about our summer camp program. c. I was not trying to make it as multiple votes. I have never defended an article before, so I did not realize I am not supposed to be doing that - I thought it was more like a paragraph header, sorry. --Joshua 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Weregerbil - Google is a search engine. Unless there are public articles such as press releases, etc..., (which is common in different industries) there is not much for Google, Yahoo or any other search engine to link on to besides the website. As I mentioned earlier, the summer camping industry does not attract its clientel that way, and therefore there will not be many articles showing, if any. This is why summer camps will typically pay for advertising click-throughs on search engines. However, because people turn to the internet for definitions and explanations of things, (even summer camps), particularly Wikipedia, we wanted there to be a reliable source to explain what the organization does. --Joshua 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore - I would hope that as admins, there is never any 'funny stuff' going on, such as just simply asking other admins or sysops or whatevers to come in and put in a 'delete' vote as some sort of comrodery between admins. As if to say 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'. Remember that this is not the Gestapo, you are supposed to be at a high standard, and not to take advantage of your positions. For instance - Wickethewok it states on your user page that you contribute mostly to music articles, suggesting that that is where your speciality resides. Why then, are people without the necessary background and information in the summer camp industry voting on a topic that they know nothing about? Without the relevant education in the industry, isn't is much like a medical doctor walking in to a court room to act as a litigator? --Joshua 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Starionwolf - This article is not an attempt to do any of what you listed. As stated earlier, we have been inundated with requests recently, and we thought that since people go to Wikipedia anyway for information (parents actually have said on the phone 'yeah, I checked Wikipedia to see what your program is, but I couldn't find anything about it there') we thought that it does merit an article. --Joshua 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: I simply don't see the necessary number of independent and reliable sources for this subject. Tangent: Nice website. Did you bother to get permission to use the Howie Day song?
Hetar - I answered this concern of yours above already. Please note above. Thanks for the nice comment on the website. We have outsourced legal counsel which deals with licensing permissions for the music we use.
- Yes, I read the above, and I am saying, I don't see the necessary sources. --Hetar 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hetar - sources for what? I am trying to explain that you will not find sources like that on the internet.
- Independent and reliable sources that provide detailed coverage of your camp. Without them, we can't have an article on it. --Hetar 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hetar - you can refer to the National Camp Association at www.summercamp.org - I don't think they list camp info on their website, but you can get their contact information and call them up. They can provide detailed info about the camp. Also we are listed on MySummerCamps.com, Campsdirectory.com, kidscom.mysummercamps.com, guidetosummercamps.com, e-camps.com, summer-day-camps.net, overnight-summer-camps.com, guidetosummercamps.com, and several others whose names currently elude me. --Joshua 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - None of those can be considered reliable secondary sources. Wickethewok 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Wickethewok - The first one I mentioned, National Camp Association is one of the most trusted sources for reliable information about camps in the summer camping industry. They are an industry recognized source, and have been so for over two decades. See [23] --Joshua 20:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If you go on their website to "Request Info/Sign Up" and then "ATH in the press", their own press release says that this summer will be the first season of this camp. I'm not sure that I see how a brand new camp warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. BigDT 05:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
BigDT - This was the first season of the camp under the name Ancient Treasure Hunters. Previously, we have been simply called an 'Archaeology Camp'. We chose this 'new face' when the decision was made by the owners of the camp to expand and broaden the reach and goals of the company. (During the year, the company owners go on their own expeditions all over the planet and aid and assist in the recovery of 'buried treasure'. We bring students/campers with us on these expeditions as well. These same students usually end up becoming campers in our archaeology camp. Hence, we have never really needed to go 'big' on the marketing angle. Now, the company's ambitions include getting a reality series for the expedition and camp angles of the business, we are in the midst of publishing a book on the topic titled 'Ancient Treasure Hunters' - or some variation if the editors end up changing it, and more. We conglomerated everything into one name, face, image etc... called Ancient Treasure Hunters. We have also worked hard - the website is the result - on the marketing angle to attract more clientel.--Joshua 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advertising, written by employee, self promotion, violation WP:CORP by lack of other sources. Congratulations on your hard work, but this isn't a blog site. Tychocat 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All other arguments aside, for this to be notable, someone would have to be discussing it. Google search shows no evidence abotu this. If it were notable in the encyclopedia sense, there woouldbe a news story or two or at least some people would have mentioned going there on personal sites. If that reality show deal goes through, then it will be notable. Right now, it isn't. Ace of Sevens 12:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree with all u guys. It looks to me like you're all ganging up against him to prove some point, and the point is that u wanna win the war. He already answered u'r thing over and over again by saying that in the summer camp industry, things just don't work the same. There are no forums, no discussion groups, and internet searching is at a minimum. U can't just keep on arguing the same point over and over again just because its easy to say! And, it's not self promotion just because it was written by an employee! And he gave u the other source secondary verifiable source - the National Camp Association! But I am sure that nobody here is going to bother to call them up on the phone, because then u'r universe of the inernet is interrupted!--rationality 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Things working different in the summer camp industry only gets you so far. It seems to amount to claiming that notable summer camps by their nature can't produce any evidence of notability beyonf unsubstantiated claims or summer camps by their nature are never notable. That's not an argument for keeping this page. Ace of Sevens 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- $$$--KeeP--$$$ Google? u keep making Google search results as a good reason to delete this entry. i think our world is about us and what we need - information, products, services etc. and Treasure Hunters is one of those things that fall in between most categories for a select group of people, that group of people is diverse enough and having the added spice of intrigue i think this is a worthy entry 100%. all the other losers which feel in need of being Mega st. Nerds you should pick your noses and let us know what you found, maybe we will even document your treasures, becasue they make as much sense as your review. X-X->SHAI<-X-X —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shai Canaan (talk • contribs)
-
- Welcome to Wikipedia, "rationality" and "Shai". Wickethewok 20:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP* I am not familiar with the summer camp industry, and I am definitely not well versed in the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. I can say one thing with confidence though: I am rapidly losing respect and interest in Wikipedia. It seems to me that ATH is a revolutionary, refreshing, educational and yes - fun summer camp. It is a true novel concept. Why then would the powers that be wish to delete an article about this camp? Isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia? To educate us? I am actually shocked that there has been so much fuss about this resourceful article! Please do not delete this creative article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimmyi (talk • contribs) This editor's first contribution. Welcome to Wikipedia!
- Delete Not notable and doesn't seem to be any avenue for constructive reference.--Auger Martel 11:58, 17 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Israel A. Burns
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
Non-notable student, who does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines. Googling his name as given in the title brings up a grand total of 1 hit. Delete as vanity (note the similarity in the Geocities URL given and the username of the creator.) Prod contested without explanation. Kimchi.sg 07:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Article is incomplete should allow for finished details on latest and quiet noticeable contribution—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam15obong (talk • contribs)
-
- Comment: We wrap up most AfDs in not less than 5 days, which should be more than enough time for you to expand your article, and write exactly what makes you so special. Kimchi.sg 07:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: First edits are complete to be followed by more with specifics from his contributers. Norman Segal, John Tasini, Sagoni Weevier and Fredick Faikei. Also speech track records.--Adam15obong 08:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Having a second look at this article, I'm not quite sure whether the subject is notable or not. I no longer have any recommendation. DarthVader 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)- Delete. Not notable. Dweller 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, and don't forget all the pics. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable biography according to WP:BIO. Doesn't really qualify for the college athletic records - might do if he turned in to a professional sportsman or an Olympian. Otherwise they are one-offs and will be bettered sooner-or-later & then do we give that person an article? (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: According to Wiki's own standards Mr. Burns's notability is almost complete. This figure is noted among A-list communities and Political spectrums in Brooklyn, NY as well as NCAA record books across the US.
The reason I am adding this page is to jump infront of media bad mouthing> There are at least a couple thousand people who have expressed intrest in this African American figure.
I was inclined to create this page by two very prominent photographers and Event planners as he will be heavily involved in very large congregational campaigns.
-This is not a vanity page- I am a web creator> Please reconsider- public demand will persist>
An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
- There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
- It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
- Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:
- of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or
- currently small or a stub, or
- obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)
Note: in order to satifiy Wiki notability I have removed his affilation with dozens of Political and Social organization, this is not my will.
--Adam15obong 17:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Looks like a bright, promising kid. Wouldn't surprise me to see him merit an article a few years down the line, but not now. Fan1967 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Google-ing his name does return hits. I have met Sir Burns in action at the Democratic Primary he is a popular man.--Akadam 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: I have been pressured to defend this article by several of my associates Israel is a local celebrate to his community and very active humanitarian. Unfortunately he does not fight for his reputation or any public recognition. However, due to his last speech it behooves the wiki powers that be to add this upstanding fellow. --N Siegel 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above two users only have 2 edits. The other edit by each was to Norman Siegel. User:Akadam also uploaded Image:Norman Siegal copy.jpg. —Whomp [T] [C] 23:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The above user is Norman Siegel of NYCLU fame, if he's not bluffing, and it seems he isn't. Wow! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above two users only have 2 edits. The other edit by each was to Norman Siegel. User:Akadam also uploaded Image:Norman Siegal copy.jpg. —Whomp [T] [C] 23:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (and with the note that, notwithstanding the inelegance of the locution, a profession that a subject has received notability [as is made in the article] isn't dispositive as to notability). The subject's bio is not at all different from those of many who are politically active at a young age (I, for example, have pictures from my halcyon days with Russ Feingold, Tom Barrett, Herb Kohl, and John Norquist), save for the subject's being involved in sundry humanitarian activities (about which one may see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ivermee); even as some may respect the subject's eleemosynary contributions, though, they are nevertheless non-notable. Joe 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Based on persents and persitance seems fine to allow said page. AirwalkLogik 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Under WP:IMP clauses does not clash with WP:BIO standards of Nn --The Nation00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I've reviewed information on all of the wiki red tape and found the final factor. So long as this article is not Vanity, selling, or promoting and is object, there is nothing to insinuate non notablity. Prestigue within his school and records supporting the case is record enough for contribuation. This is note a run of the mill situational page, this is a young Icon. his speech will be posted within the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam15obong (talk • contribs)
- Delete, per nom and (aeropagitica). Fails WP:BIO, and the article is strongly WP:VANITY. It reads like a hagiography. In addition, with the exception of a few links to some college athetic reviews (and to be frank... big deal), the information in the article does not appear to be backed up by reliable sources. I'm essentially saying that the subject should find another way to publicise himself, because this sort of thing doesn't belong here. Get notable, and then let others write an article about you. - Motor (talk)
KeepI dont feel that there are enough grounds for removal obviously you guys have not reached into the links and the story. Does lack of fame make a vanity article? Also Para WP:VANITY guide lines the wording in this article is cold comfort to notice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Akadam (talk • contribs)
- Quote of WP:VANITY by Akadam: Does lack of fame make a vanity article? An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
- Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.'
- The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.
- Delete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You can't classify yourself as a "scientific classification" because you're not a panda bear.04:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.236.198.74 (talk • contribs) .
- This is my second post on this page. N Siegel posted on my Talk pages asking me to reconsider my opinion. I've twice re-read the article this morning and my opinion is unchanged. I cannot see why anyone outside of this person's university would have an iota of interest in him. I have a number of questions and comments that I believe are pertinent to the notability question:
-
- why was he invited to speak at a "Humanitarian of the Year" event. Is he, in fact, a humanitarian? If so, spell it out... prove his notability!
- what is so "uncanny" about his sporting achievements? If we listed everyone who broke a couple of school and college sports records, Wikipedia would overwhelmed.
- what is so notable about getting involved with local politics? Or even national politics? Do you want an article for every intern, every fundraiser, every camp-follower?
Yes, this chap shows signs of developing into a noteworthy human being, if his ego is allowed to remain human-sized. He may even end up here one day.
But currently, I'm amazed that so many people can read the Wikipedia criteria and still argue to "keep"! He's not notable. Yet.
I stay with my original Delete, somewhat bewildered by this debate. Dweller 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: I just got the call from Steve and Adam and yeah, yuo guys dont understand and I didnt expect this much problems... Alot of people love the kid he does alote for nothing... 48,000 and he doesnt have a house... but Fuck-it, just dont be superised if you see his name again... --Akadam 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Final Defending Comment
- Delete: Well I want you all to know my friends and I have spoken with Israel and he actually begged them to remove the article. That being said I nominate its deletion.
Before I let this issue go let me address those concerns, (I assure you this is in no way a ploy for sympathy, the sheer fact that I have had this much difficulty confirming this young mans reputation is beyond me. He disserves better then this.)
- 1. Israel is a prolific writer and his written many speeches for some esteemed clinics. He was invited to the event as a speaker because he comes from a broken home, and has a reputation a progressive young black. He’s 20 right now.
- 2. According to the record he is one of the one of most progressive throwers in his schools years… I don’t know…. Whatever, somebody told me to add it because the kid does this and he does a lot of other activates. Israel is a pretty good guy and I think it deserves mention… whatever..
- 3Israel is not involved in politics he is a very powerful behinds the scene man in Brooklyn… I’ve asked him the specifics and he said he couldn’t tell me, but he’s everywhere and if you ask everyone knows him. They compare him to a young Karl Rove… I have a picture of him with Cindy Sheehan in Texas…if you’d like it let me know…
I suppose your all right the kid is a young progress black and he will pop up in the future, the purpose was to get this out before his next campaign so maybe he might get some of the reputation he disserves… but you guys run Wikipedia and I’m just a web-designer… I guess we’ll just wait tell he’s not young anymore…. Since that’s what defines importance.--Adam15obong 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - age isn't the defining factor. As has been said umpteen times already, it's notability that is the key. There are plenty of kids much young than Mr Burns with (deserved) Wikipedia articles. One example is this 13 year old. And if Wikipedia had existed in the 1930s, this kid would have got in at 5. And in 1978, this girl would have got in at 1 day old.Dweller 10:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable and fails to meet the requirements for WP:BIO--Auger Martel 11:59, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Art Loria
Non-notable musician / doo wop singer (?) per WP:BIO. All assertions of notability are unverifiable; I can't find anything elsewhere on this person. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dang, I can't find anything on this person, and the article is a horrid mess. I found VERY small spattering about a company on a couple different search engines, but not about an artist by that name. Not that I can tell that well if the article is about an artist or a company anyways. Kevin_b_er 07:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kevin. Shaun Eccles-Smith 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
- Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 09:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Starionwolf 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Petros471 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Central Connector
Road never existed. Author resists merge to Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority by reverting multiple merge attempts. Entirety of article is summarized there in one sentence; so it seems a delete (or a protected redirect) is in order B.Wind 07:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- A whole chapter in a book about the road (PDF). Recommend speedy keep for a bad-faith nomination. --SPUI (T - C) 07:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Funny enough, the only thing from that book in either article is the link. The previous comment does not address the issues of the road never existing and the totality of the article in question is already in Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority. B.Wind 07:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as proposed. There is never going to be much information about a road that never existed. We might learn more about the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority, or decision making processes in Orlando, or whatever, but that belongs eleswhere, and the non-road is NN. Mr Stephen 09:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- ... and redirect. sorry, forgot. Mr Stephen 09:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm going to go against the crowd here and say keep, while it's true that the road never actually existed, that fact in my book makes it inherintly more notable than the thousands of articles we already have on existing roads, if this was expanded to explain exactly why said road was met with so much opposition it could be a really great article. Deathawk 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Deathawk...Scott5114 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep expandable and noteworthy. Fg2 13:55, 13 June 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 and USERFY. Harro5 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kaloian Koravski
Vanity. Mad Jack 07:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nod Mad Jack 07:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom - Google returns no results. Kalani [talk] 07:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy and delete. Danny Lilithborne 08:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Completely not notable. CSD A7. DarthVader 08:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Not notable, vanity. Mr Stephen 08:56, 12 June 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 no context. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nano-Presidential
To be honest, I have no idea how important the term actually is, but as it is now it is hardly an article.
- Delete . Google returns 15 results. Kalani [talk] 07:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete until something more resembling an article can be created. Danny Lilithborne 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I can't verify the information. --Starionwolf 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jammo (SM247) 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mega-Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{nocontext}}. Tagged. Grandmasterka 06:55, 14 June 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. Sango123 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robin Wegener
- Delete: I've never heard of this fellow, and I would not consider him notable. The article fails to state any notable accomplishments and the links to websites do not help out either. Googling him doesn't help much either. If any notable accomplishments were mentioned, I would change my vote. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if the team he's in doesn't have an article than I can't see how he could be considered notable, unless anyone can show otherwise. Ydam 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I wrote the article and I agree that it should be deleted. I'm new and didn't realize that I had to be a "notable" curler in order to be included. Oh well, live and learn. Thanks for setting me straight. Wegener 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 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 to Jedi census phenomenon. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jedi religon
Badly wikified promotional article for a website, even located at the wrong place. - Sikon 08:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no redirect or merge. This is a promotional pamphlet, there's nothing worth keeping. Danny Lilithborne 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jedi no merge. It will discourage people from recreating this article and jedi religion is something that people are liable to search for Ydam 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and do a major overhaul I've heard enough about the Jedi religion thing. TheKillerAngel 12:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - did no one notice the title was misspelled? Redirect at best. — AKADriver ☎ 13:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I would have said keep had it been an article discussing the attempts to Affect "official religion" census results in some countries, as that is notable. This on the otherhand is not. --DennyCrane Talk 14:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no reliable sources from which to draw. Tangotango 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Tangotango/Tangot. --Starionwolf 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I almost voted "redirect" to Jedi census phenomenon, but then I noticed the typo in the article name. Jedi religion already redirects, so this one can go, delete. David Sneek 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Could be useful as a Template:R from misspelling. --Zoz (t) 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but the article needs to be almost entirely re-written and given some real references. It might actually be easier to delete and start over. Ace of Sevens 12:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jedi census phenomenon (despite the misspelling) as redirects are very cheap. This wall of text is completely unsourced original research, and poorly written (the main key to becoming a Jedi is Pacients.) Grandmasterka 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per David Sneek. --Metropolitan90 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Madd4Max 14:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per David Sneek Deleuze 14:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jedi census phenomenon. The "Jedi religion" is notable (0.7% claimed to be Jedi in England and Wales, but the article is a very poorly written OR. --Zoz (t) 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to Jedi census phenomenon. This article only exists because of a typo! Alternatively, the article should become 'Jedi Religion', that is if it really exists. Peterkingiron 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Petros471 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cindy Chavez
Previously tagged by authors as political spam (article was speedy deleted and then recreated) and then as speedy - nn person. Second deletion has been queried by author, therefore bringing to AFD to arrive at consensus. Kcordina Talk 08:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as recreation of previously deleted material. Author makes no case other than "it's all true" which we already know is not what Wikipedia is about. Danny Lilithborne 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep satisfies WP:BIO criterion 2 (for people still alive), Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. Definitely notable, and maybe even a {{currentevent}} tag would be justified considering the elections for mayor are on-going. Article doesn't show much bias, with an unfavourable incident in her mayorship campaign mentioned. Kimchi.sg 11:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable figure in San Jose, California, who seems notable enough as per our policies on local government figures to warrant a page. Seems to have attracted enough media interest to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Andrew Winchester
Not notable. As an amateur, fails WP:BIO for sportsmen (the Kumho stickers on the car belong to the race sponsors). Probably a vanity page, so fails WP:AUTO. Prod removed by original editor. Mr Stephen 08:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The article can always be recreated if the subject gains notability. - Tangotango 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for now per Tangotango/Tangot. --Starionwolf 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TVAus
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB. Alexa traffic ranking of: 1,831,570. - Motor (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
NOTE, Pre-existing thread at tvaus.com.au. Quote: "i was looking on wikipedia today one of my fav sites and i was thinging it would be fantastic if tvaus had its own wikipage. There will be sizeable cash rewards for anyone who adds to our wikipage. I would have created it my self however i dont think thats in the true sprit of the wiki... so first person to read this and who knows what i am talking about head over and create a page under the title of "tvaus"." - Motor (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Steve-Ho 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, why would you want an article on a tv forum?--Andeh 11:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 176 Google hits, no independent reliable sources mention the site, this sure is non-notable. Kimchi.sg 12:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete due to bad-faith creation of the article in the first place. --Elkman 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all of above. - Tangotango 16:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Bad says, "Delete that crap!" ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 16:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence that this forum meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- While I am tempted by the "strong cash rewards" to add to the page, I must vote Delete for all the reasons given above. --Roisterer 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete obviously spam and NPOV. - Mike Beckham 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Mike Beckham.--Auger Martel 12:00, 17 June 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. Petros471 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kinga Freespirit Choszcz
failure to show notibility of person Steve-Ho 08:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 09:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete falls just outside of the notability border, but 2 notes: 1. Google for her name as given in article title draws only 12 hits, [24] but take out her middle name and the hit count jumps to 1,930 [25]. 2. Most pages about her seem to be relevant but in Polish. Kimchi.sg 12:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete regretfully. Article is interesting though. Recreate after notibility and importance are established. --Starionwolf 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete Do a Google on Kinga and Chopin or Kinga AND Hitchhiking, and you get 10,100 hits. She was seldomly known by her surname, and the "middle" name is actually a nickname. She hasn't re-invented the world, but her book won a prize and her photos were fabulous. In my opinion, dying while doing what you are passionate about is enough to make one notable. Sam Berner - QLD, Australia—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.84.58 (talk • contribs)
-
- Anon's only 2 edits are to this AfD and the article. Kimchi.sg 16:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete: Please don't she might not have been a superstar but to those who knew her or of her she was a superstar who inspired many many people in her life.. I know u can probably say that abt a lot of people but this woman truly lived life to the full and I would like the whole world to know of her life... she deserves much more than a stub... Shelley Burke- Toronto, Ontario Canada—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.234.27 (talk • contribs)
-
- Anon's 14th edit. Kimchi.sg 16:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete Kinga's contribution to popular culture is notable as author, photographer and traveler. Her pseudonym was 'Kinga Freespirit', and the approx. 1000 google results from this name- as well as the content of the pages- show that she has made a lasting mark both on and off the web. Morgan 'Sal'man 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- User has 25 edits. Kimchi.sg 16:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ambivalent She seems to be popular with gee isn't world-wide travel enlightening oh wow crowd...but most everybody else probably didn't care. Williamb 14:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Article says that she has won awards for her travel writing, which ought to make her notable enough. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - there are plenty of articles that are of dubious importance to the overwhelming mass of users and she is close enough to notability (over 10000 hits according to one of the above users) that she should remain. Exercise caution with generosity. Escobar@gmail.com 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Close, but just falls short of sufficient notability for own article. --Auger Martel 12:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral: There's only a handful of unique English-language Google hits for "Kinga Freespirit". I have a hunch though that there may be more in Polish. Any chance of getting some assistance here from someone who speaks the language? There is also a corresponding article in the polish wikipedia ([26]). Is there anything noteworthy there? How about the prize the article claims she won - the "Kolos", and the claim of her interview in National Geographic -- is there any truth to those, and if so are they notable enough? I do also agree with Williamb's comment above --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - After reading the deletion policy, i see that the main issue this entry has is the fact that Ms. Choszcz is dead. I only discovered her work today, but i have been struck by her unquestioning belief that people are intrinsically good. I have also been impressed with her insistence on returning an exploited child to her family in Ghana shortly before she died. Ms. Chozcz was an author, photographer, and humanitarian, who i believe deserves her place in Wikipedia history. --judyb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.218.42.170 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 June 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. Sango123 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original Batang Pinas (OBP)
Non-notable gang, does not meet WP:N. Google returns less than 100 results.
I am also nominating the following page because it contains the same content and is about the same group:
- Original Batang Pinas
Kalani [talk] 08:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 09:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:35, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NOKR
The original version of this article was slapped with a speedy tag by me because it was a direct copy from this organization's website (with "All Rights Reserved".) After it was deleted, it was recreated and elevated to the status of... Vanity "advertising". I left the article for a while to see if it could be improved, but after a week, I remain unconcvinced that this emergency contact system has taken hold to the extent the article says it has. (The external links I've looked at don't seem relevant.) Is this notable or not? You decide! Grandmasterka 09:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, website vanity, advertising. I only had to read as far as "we". JIP | Talk 12:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JIP Mr Stephen 12:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JIP --Starionwolf 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JIP ~ trialsanderrors 02:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JIP. —Khoikhoi 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite. Given that it's the subject of proposed Congressional legislation, is supported by Jesse Jackson, and it's not-for-profit, I'd allow its inclusion. It does need to be made more objective, though. - Richardcavell 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per JIP. Angr (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Riddled with advertisement and reads as a vanity article.--Auger Martel 12:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Fang Aili. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Book of Esther
Shouldn't this be included in Wikisource instead? There is nothing in this article - all wikilinks are dead. Seems to simply be using space. Robertsteadman 09:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 09:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I have no problem whatsoever with articles about individual Bible verses as appropriate, but a list of redlinked Bible verses serves little use to anyone. BigDT 12:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- On the 5th and 6th of June user: Rich Farmbrough started so many artiucles including one like this for every book of the Bible - all are just redlinks... do I have to list each separate one for AfD or can an admin advise about removing the lot on block? It seems that this user has been creating endless empty artciles for several days!! Robertsteadman 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I will Userify these for now (later today or tomorrow). Regards, Rich Farmbrough 12:52 12 June 2006 (GMT). 12:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How? What will you do? How will it make any difference to Wikisource? What is the point? Robertsteadman 12:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- As List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job and all the othehrs have been speedy deleted I will change this to speedy delete.Robertsteadman 14:56, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Malik Al-Hassan Yakubu
Non-notable politician. Google returns 35 results. Kalani [talk] 09:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ex-Interior Minister of Ghana - see [27]. Google test not really appropriate here. Dlyons493 Talk 12:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Government ministers (see Dlyons493's link) are notable under WP:BIO. Mr Stephen 13:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep , possibly rename to Malik al-Hassan Yakubu. I don't know we handle capital letters in "al-" prefixes. Punkmorten 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Punkmorten 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. How can an interior minister not be notable? Madd4Max 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well known minister within the country and even the continent.--Auger Martel 12:03, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mikko Iho
Non-notable TV commercial director. Harro5 09:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Who? BlueValour 21:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:35, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shopperpedia
I think this deserves at least some discussion, so I'm putting it on AfD rather than proposed deletion. While looking through my old contribs for entries that still had "(top)" on them, I found this one; the article hasn't been touched since June 2005. I think it's vanity and an advertisement, because even though it receives 33100 google hits, many of them are wikipedia related, and some of the results are quite strange and look like blatant SEO (like this page. The wiki isn't very active, see it's recent changes for the last 30 days and its statistics. I am also unsure of what to do about the many mentions of shopperpedia on other language wikipedias. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping encylopedia; what are the differences between that article and the shopperpedia one? Graham talk 10:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed all the mentions of shopperpedia on other editions of wikipedia. I've also notified the (still active) participants in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping encylopedia about this debate. The more I look into this, the more uncontrovercial it seems ... Graham talk 10:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Good idea for a wiki, but it looks like it hasn't really taken off. Alexa rank 1,441,708. Their recent changes page shows only 3 edits in the month of June so far... en.wikipedia, for comparison's sake, has dozens of edits every minute. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think it meets WP:WEB. enochlau (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this site is similar to Shopping encyclopedia (and similar notability). My reasoning in that AfD holds for this AfD (disclaimer: I was contacted about this AfD due to my involvement in the Shopping encyclopedia AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete articles on Wikis don't get special dispensation because Wikipedia is itself a Wiki; no verification still means no article. Ziggurat 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mootif.com
Advertisment, prod was removed Barrylb 10:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Obvious spam/vanity. Wickethewok 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please keep it! - The site provides a valuable online graphics editor. If you read through the help pages and try to use it more, you will find out that it does provide valuable features. Basically, it is trying to provide a simplified online photoshop and integrate with printing companies like shutterfly, zazzle and stamps.com. The next step is to integrate with flickr. We know the site is pretty new. But if that's the reason for you guys to determine whether a page should be kept or not, then what's the difference between Wikipedia and Google? If you have any issue accessing the site or any suggestions to improve the site and the page, please let me know. Thanks a lot. Mootif 9:45, 12 June 2006 (PST)
- Delete - 1 relevant Google hit + website is new = delete, come back later when someone else has reviewed your amazing graphics editor first. Kimchi.sg 19:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - clear spam/vanity, no relevant google hits -- DrunkenSmurf 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Come back if things work out and you have some independent sources to cite. Kafziel 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can somebody delete this for me - Sorry for the trouble. I tried to delete it but couldn't find a way. Can somebody help me to delete it? Thanks. --Mootif 02:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- No worries - An admin will delete it soon. Wickethewok 04:23, 14 June 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 see below Proto///type 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – Will (message me!) 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Expanding on this. Basically, most of the keep votes had nothing to do with the article. ConMan has a good summary of what I'm meaning to say. It's a weak consensus to delete it, but it's consensus.
Will (message me!) 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Restored on user request. (re-reviewed, no consensus) Will (message me!) 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BeatPick
Website spam Koffieyahoo 10:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep, because it's important to have a directory of projects using creative commons licensing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zumodekt (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- User's only contributions have been to the article, this AfD, and adding it to a list of projects using CC licenses. Confusing Manifestation 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep – their ideas at openbusiness.cc are pretty good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.0.221.95 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Maybe it's good to have a directory of such products, but Wikipedia is not the place for that directory.Confusing Manifestation 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 15:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks notable, but article could use some cleaning up. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - these new businesses are promoting a new way of doing business. We are assisting a cultural revolution and it's important to document it.Mattias
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. Kimchi.sg 19:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks notable, and the article appears to have been cleaned up since the nomination. Madd4Max 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. A brief skim through the website highlights the number of artists signed. Google shows enough notability (~53,000 hits). Article looks fine. — 199 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Over 98% op the hits come from MySpace.com pages. Koffieyahoo 05:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am sorry Koffieyahoo but what you say is untrue. google "beatpick myspace". it returns 12000. 53000 minus 12000 is 41000. also there are only 3 myspace links on the first 5 google pages. Joan
- Comment You are aware that google filters out hits for a single domain where there are lots of them? If you do a search on BeatPick and go to the 25th page with hits on them, you'll get a message that only 248 are returned because the others come from similar domains. But, yes okay, the 98% might be a bit overstated.-- Koffieyahoo 02:43, 19 June 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. Sango123 15:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Newgrounds Log
Newgrounds cruft. Completly non-notable outside of newgrounds itself. Alexa traffic ranking: 909,709. Delete, no redirect. - Motor (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 11:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- GWO
- Delete - as Newgrounds cruft. Wickethewok 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Deli nk 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 23:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Billpg 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:35, 13 June 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 not delete. Exactly what happens to this article (with what title) can be decided on its talk page. Petros471 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Silverside
Looks like nonsense/original research to me. Never heard of that expression. One man's article. Mariano(t/c) 11:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Keep per below. Looked like original research to me at the time too. DarthVader 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- Keep. You can buy silverside from any half-decent butcher. Google search "silverside beef" if you don't believe me. -- GWO
- Strong keep - nom and delete voters please check. Siverside is a common cut of beef. Corned silverside is used for corned beef ( cooked at home ). Perhaps a non-cross cultural term ? - Peripitus (Talk) 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think you're right; it's not cross-cultural. I suspect the term has little use in the US. I've never heard it. Google seems to return primarily Australian and British sites. Fan1967 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Its a valid article. Dev920 13:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename. There certainly is a cut of beef called silverside. However, the article currently called 'silverside (fish)' but originally 'silverside' was here first, but renamed to make way for this (beef) article. A look at the two 'what links here' pages suggests that the fish article was renamed rather sloppily. Mr Stephen 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge in to Beef#Primal_cuts, or create a daughter article called Cuts of beef linked to Beef#Primal_cuts, discussing the merits of each cut. (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I'm sorry if I proposed for deletion a valid article, but I prefer to bing attention to the article rather than leaving an orphan one. Besides, I'm not that sure this is encyclopedic, even if not a hoax. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 14:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You'll have a stronger case if you show evidence of even the slightest bit of preliminary research before AfD'ing something. -- GWO
- Keep but Rename Per Mr Stephen. Let the fish have this title back, with a DAB to the beef article at the top. Fan1967 17:15, 12 June 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. Sango123 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Julius von Brunk
Flashcruft, newgrounds spam. Fails WP:BIO. Not even the internet-biased google test helps him: 143 hits for "Julius von Brunk". Original research, WP:VERIFY, no reliable sources and WP:VANITY. Was previously AFDed and deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron von Brunk. Quote from the article: 'he's often referred on the internet world [sic] as "Baron von Brunk"' - GHits 282 (Baron von Brunk is a redirect here). Basically, this a grand slam of everything that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. My choice: Delete and prevent recreation of "Julius von Brunk" and "Baron von Brunk". - Motor (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as repost if it indeed is a repost, otherwise delete as vanity page per nom. Kimchi.sg 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable animator. Leave open for recreation if he attains notability. --Billpg 19:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The page is quite different from Baron von Brunk; at least, there was an attempt to write it in an encyclopedic style. However, it still fails to establish notability. Delete - possibly a speedy deletion candidate as vanity. - Mike Rosoft 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity, not notable and fails to meet the requirements for WP:BIO--Auger Martel 12:05, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pearland Army JROTC
delete Non-notable chapter of high school organisation - being used I think as a homepage for the school's chapter. Monkeybait 11:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It looks like there has been a fair bit of input and work put into this article. Unfortunately though, a chapter like this is not notable and therefore should not be kept on wikipedia. DarthVader 11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dis...missed per nom and per AfD discussion about another individual JROTC unit, well-written though it is. Jammo (SM247) 23:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, despite all the work they put in. RedRollerskate 16:28, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Masters of Doom: The Animated Series
Flashcruft. No reliable sources. Not-notable. Original research. The biggest claim to fame it makes is winning "daily 3rd" and having gotten good reviews from newgrounds posters (followed by link to said forum posts). Delete - Motor (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Thoroughly NN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the not notable article. --Starionwolf 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you guys would have taken the time to actually READ the description of the cartoon on Newgrounds, you'll clearly see it has a 3rd place award. I'm not exacly sure what that whole "biggest claim" remark is supposed to mean. Whether it's just some feeble scoff to get a quick chuckle, or ignorance induced by not reading details, one thing remains: This article has proper citations. Two of the people lampooned in MODTAS (John Romero and Tom Hall) have spoken to the animators via e-mail, and have mentioned the cartoon on the front pages of their websites.
- There's no need for anyone to claim the content of the article is all bogus material. Nobody in the right mind would actually take the time to create an entire Wikipedia article just to lie about getting respect from some video game creators.
- - Bo Anderson,
- Die-hard MODTAS fanboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.39.216.103 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 June 2006.
- This is Mike Lombardo, the co-creator of the cartoon. We recieved word from John Romero, David Kushner and Tom Hall saying they liked the cartoon. John Romero and David Kushner both put the cartoon on their websites, as did Planet Doom. This cartoon is notable, especially in relation to the wiki article on the book, the game and the creators themselves. John Romero even edited and added trivia and facts to the wiki article, check the history. All of the facts have been verified and citations and links have been added to verify them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.235.137 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Hardly notable, riddled with original research and hardly any avenue for constructive references.--Auger Martel 12:06, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Desmond Brand
I noticed that this AFD was redlinked on the AFD page. An IP user - User:155.143.147.27 had tagged the article with afd1, but obviously cannot create the AFD page itself. I am creating it as a procedural nomination with no vote. BigDT 12:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, smells like a hoax. Only 15 Google hits [28] for a "renowned Australian rocket scientist and robo-engineer"? Kimchi.sg 12:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - completely unknown renowned rocket scientist. tastes like a hoax too - only hit on the surname and robot designators is [here] - Peripitus (Talk) 13:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced and hoaxy. PJM 13:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per peripitus Deli nk 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I can't verify the information either. Cheers --Starionwolf 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of backronyms
This article is basically a list of jokes. UNC = "University of Nice Chicks". NFL = "No Fun League". Ha ha. Funny. Then, there's a list of radio callsigns. For example, WWNY = "We're Whining Northern Yokels" and WJAR = "We're Jerks All Right". The only borderline meaningful encyclopedic content - under the "Reverse etymology" and "False etymology" - is already found elsewhere. The rest of the article is an unsourced list of jokes. Please put it out of its misery. BigDT 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infinitely expandable listcruft. Any abbreviation can be turned into a backronym given enough creativity and time. Kimchi.sg 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete since at least some of these are not actually backronyms at all, and a substantial number of the rest appear to have been made up in school one day. Just zis Guy you know? 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, some of these are fairly established, and are worth mentioning. The list probably needs pruning, though. JIP | Talk 12:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - yes, some are fairly established, like tip or gcc, but they are mentioned in False etymology or Recursive acronym - this article consists of a few things found elsewhere and a lot of bad jokes. BigDT 13:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as per nom. It's an unsourced list of jokes and I fail to see any encyclopedic value here. Much of it scrapes WP:NFT, as it stands. PJM 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I've disliked this page for months. It's the Wikipedia version of a funny names thread. No references, mostly a list of jokes thought up by editors with too much time on their hands.Phiwum 14:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as Phiwum. -- GWO
- Delete per Phiwum. --Starionwolf 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Much of it could go to BJAODN, and the rest isn't worth keeping. —Cuiviénen 21:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FORscene
Page was previously deleted (at least twice) as advertising and recreated with some changes. It is still a non-notable software product, the article is advertising posted by the company's founder, and generally WP:VSCA-ish. Sleepyhead 12:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
(Please note: the above was moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORscene
- Keep The article contains references to reliable sources which attest to the product's meeting the notability guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE. User:Stephen B Streater created a working copy in his user space, I moved it into main space because I think that this is now a good article which is stated in neutral terms and satisfactorily establishes the encyclopaedic notability of the product. You are invited to review Stephen's other contributions to understand the efforts he has made to understand and embrace Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the references seems like press-releases to me. --Sleepyhead 12:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Some might be, granted, but some are not and there is (most importantly) good evidence that it is being used by several mainstream UK television production companies, including GMTV, as well as the Royal Television Society award. The Army Everest expedition link is also notable. I'd say it meets the guidelines. But that is just my opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - has enough non-trivial mentions in the press to meet WP:SOFTWARE. Not great but far better than most of the software articles. Definately notable enough to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep or Merge and redirect to Stephen B. Streater. Artw 14:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see it as advertising, though perhaps it could be toned down a bit in places. Notable enough to keep. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - the software's notable, the article establishes that it is - and if the feeling is that it needs toning down, I'll put some work into doing that. --JennyRad 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A little buffing and polishing wouldn't go amiss though. Dlyons493 Talk 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and shorten - the made up word "concisify" comes to mind. The history needs to be less step by step and more general, and the references can leave out so many [numbers] and just list them at the bottom. The article has good information, but is a little lengthy for the topic. Fresheneesz 07:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I could not fail to disagree more with the statement this is "...a non-notable software product". The design is rather like Concorde; it was the first of its kind and I don't believe anything since has equalled it, or even come close in terms of breadth nor depth. If somebody can point me to an equivalent then please do. Unless you have tried to 'do internet/mobile video' yourself you may not fully appreciate how ground breaking this software is. It was recently described as a classic example of a 'disruptive' technology. Don't object to changes in content / style - but the 'invention' is certainly notable and it should stay. mk 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:CSD A3, as it consists only of links elsewhere and a rephrasing of the title. I will of course userfy it on request if Rich has not yet saved the text elsewhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job
Shouldn't this be included in Wikisource instead? There is nothing in this article - all wikilinks are dead. Seems to simply be using space. Robertsteadman 12:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- On the 5th and 6th of June user: Rich Farmbrough started so many articles including one like this for every book of the Bible - all are just redlinks... do I have to list each separate one for AfD or can an admin advise about removing the lot on block? It seems that this user has been creating endless empty artciles for several days!! Robertsteadman 12:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good grief ... I was just noticing that ... he also created eleventy billion articles for every verse of Matthew that do nothing but redirect to Gospel of Matthew. What the heck is the point? I have left a comment on User talk:Rich Farmbrough asking what his intentions are for the articles. But to answer your question, if he is unwilling for them to be speedy deleted, then they all have to come through AFD. They can come through together in a single nomination - just tag each article with {{afd1}} and change the AFD link to be the link to the common nomination. HOWEVER - I would suggest only nominating the ones that are nothing but redlinks together. If there is a book that has articles for some verses, then there may be some who would want to keep that list, but delete the ones that are only redlinks. BigDT 12:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- OK - it does seem he's got a little out of control!! - and he wants to be an admin!!! Robertsteadman 12:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please note, after I wrote this message, User:Rich Farmbrough left a note on my talk page saying that he does have a purpose for the articles and expressing a willingness to userfy them in the interim. BigDT 12:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK - it does seem he's got a little out of control!! - and he wants to be an admin!!! Robertsteadman 12:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete All these red links are simply going to encourage people to create articles on them, something which would be redundant with the contents of them already at wikisource. At the very least all these links should be delinked Ydam 12:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- As user: Rich Farmbrough has done this for all 66 books of the Bible (and some other stuff too) could he be asked to de-link everything - otehrwise its a hell of a job!!! Robertsteadman 12:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Userfy per [29] BigDT 12:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don;t we need some explanation of how these will be userfied and how these will be different from wikisource before changing from Delete? Robertsteadman 12:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just as a point of procedure, once they are in his user space and not in article space, the place to discuss deletion is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. However, in userspace, as long as you aren't violating some policy like WP:NPA, you have wide liberty to work on articles. A lot of people work on not-ready-for-prime-time articles in their own userspace and then move them to article space once they feel they are useful. This would be no different, IMO. BigDT 12:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. "List" implies that it's just that - a list of all of the verses in the Bible. Even if it's userfied and then properly expanded and completed, it'll be redundant with Wikisource. --fuzzy510 12:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - forgot to include my vote! Robertsteadman 12:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will Userify these for now (later today or tomorrow). Regards, Rich Farmbrough 12:51 12 June 2006 (GMT). 12:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How? What will you do? How will it make any difference to Wikisource? What is the point? Robertsteadman 12:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, there is a "move" link at the top of each page. He will probably use that link to move them to User:Rich Farmbrough/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job, etc. That way, they are not in article space and he can work on them within his user space until there is a use for them. BigDT 13:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I still think delete - there is no good purpose behind this nor the million other empty articles he has begun. Robertsteadman 13:27, 12 June 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 per CSD A7 and comments below (see also my deletion summary). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jan van den Berg
This article qualifies as a vanity page. It's a life story that's most likely fictional, culminating in this 'Jan van den Berg' becoming an employee of a company called Firstkontaktdesign. The only link in the article points to an unfinished homepage, and the website of Firstkontaktdesign reveals it as an insignificant (6 employees) graphic design company. Googling "Firstkontaktdesign" AND "Jan van den Berg" yields just 2 hits. I was scanning the list of articles requiring quick translation, but for the lack of importance of this page to anybody besides Jan van den Berg himself, I recommend deletion instead. --Ivo van der Horst 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete regretfully the page in Nederlands unless someone translates it. Adieu, vaarwel! --Starionwolf 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete snel snel - hoax. Two quotes: "Jan was sold to Chinese pirates and put on a yonk that braught him to Kyoto. Here he fulfilled from his ninth until his fifteenth birthday the role of sparring partner of the famous sumo wrestler Konishiki. After this rather intensive period there was no bone left in his body that was not broken..." And, the real culmination: "He remained working here till long after his death." --LambiamTalk 19:32, 12 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] University of Sagar
This page is an advertisement for the university and a hagiography of its founder. Prod contested without explanation. Kimchi.sg 12:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - universities are notable. I removed the vanity section about the founder. Someone needs to explain NPOV to User:Jsx1200. BigDT 13:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, expand, cleanup. --Starionwolf 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Obviously a case for cleanup rather than deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Flowery language not a problem, but the university webpage??!?!? What about WP:RS? ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: You have a good point trialsanderrors. The article needs some more reliable sources.
- Comment Accredited by NAAC. See [30]. And yes, it's hard to see how the National Informatics Centre, Madhya Pradesh Ministry of Information Technology, Govt.of India could design and host a site like that! Dlyons493 Talk 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure that's not self-reported? There is a scan on the Uni webpage that makes me very suspicious. Plus what about the sagaruniversity.nic.in domain? Is that standard? If I go to the nic.in portal and search for sagar I get a lot of links but no U of Sagar. ~ trialsanderrors 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's mentioned on Britannica which is reliable. "The city also has an industrial school and a school of horsemanship and is the seat of the Doctor Hari Singh Gour University (1946) and several affiliated colleges." Dlyons493 Talk 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure that's not self-reported? There is a scan on the Uni webpage that makes me very suspicious. Plus what about the sagaruniversity.nic.in domain? Is that standard? If I go to the nic.in portal and search for sagar I get a lot of links but no U of Sagar. ~ trialsanderrors 22:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Universities are always notable. ImpuMozhi 04:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Its an actual university. The article only needs to be improved, not deleted -- Lost 06:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy close, copyvio, will be deleted on CP anyway. --Rory096 23:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Speedy keep - I'll be rewriting it now that copyvio has been pointed out. Dlyons493 Talk 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, but copy content even if you rewrite it, the copy vio version is still available. copy the current version (if not copy vio) and put it in a brand new article under the same name. American Patriot 1776 02:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Petros471 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Walter Paisley
This characters isn't notable enough. Philip Stevens 12:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Agreed with nom. Wickethewok 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - It's a notable Roger Corman/Joe Dante in-joke. The article has as much merit as, say, Arthur the Plant, or See You Next Wednesday. The article should be kept, as there are other films that use this name in addition to those already mentioned in the article (they've yet to be added), and I'm sure that there will be more in the future. (Ibaranoff24 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
- Keep I was surprised when I saw Dick Miller's character in The Howling wikified, and surprised when the link was blue. But reading the article and understanding this is more than one movie, I think it's notable. I'd like to see expansion. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:20, 15 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thinkin' Lincoln
Fails WP:WEB Johndarrington 12:57, 12 June 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}} |
- Delete No evidence or claim of notability. Deli nk 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Deli nk. --Starionwolf 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep In the interest of full disclosure, Thinkin' Lincoln is my comic (though I did not create this article). Nevertheless, it has been linked to by a number of other fairly big web comics, including Dinosaur Comics, Wondermark, Whispered Apologies, and Reprographics. It also gets 15 or 16 thousand visits per month, and there are over 230 individual strips. This seems to me to be about as notable as a number of other comics that are allowed to remain on Wikipedia. —KillerDeathRobot
- Keep It's a great strip that should have an entry. It's notable, there's no reason to delete the entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.178.200 (talk • contribs)
- KeepI read this comic strip everyday, for the purely joyous satire. Long live Thinkin' Lincoln!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.207.47 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Comic author posted on the comic's front page "There is a Wikipedia entry for Thinkin' Lincoln...it's actually marked for deletion! So if you want to help out by editing it and maybe commenting on the talk page that you don't think it should be deleted, that'd be totally kick flippin'." I've applied the {{afdnewbies}} tag since two anon IPs have already made visits. -- Scientizzle 22:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not trying to ballot stuff, I was mostly hoping for some expansion on the article, which indeed has been expanded since I made that post. I know as well as anyone that this isn't a vote. —KillerDeathRobot
- Please don't take my comment personally--I was just informing other users of potential ballot stuffing. The article has been expanded, but still doesn't make any claims of notability to meet WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not trying to ballot stuff, I was mostly hoping for some expansion on the article, which indeed has been expanded since I made that post. I know as well as anyone that this isn't a vote. —KillerDeathRobot
- Comment Comic author posted on the comic's front page "There is a Wikipedia entry for Thinkin' Lincoln...it's actually marked for deletion! So if you want to help out by editing it and maybe commenting on the talk page that you don't think it should be deleted, that'd be totally kick flippin'." I've applied the {{afdnewbies}} tag since two anon IPs have already made visits. -- Scientizzle 22:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no WP:Reliable sources, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I realize that I am biased, as the comic's creator, but I have been looking at other comics that are not slated for deletion, and there are quite a few that I have never heard of. Some have not been reviewed (for whatever reason), but some have been kept on the basis of one or two comments that someone has heard of the comic. I apologize for monopolizing so much of the discussion however, and I will not post here again. —KillerDeathRobot
- Comment - Articles on neologisms created on Livejournal and MS Paint garbage aren't assets to Wikipedia. If they're not slated for deletion, they should be. - Hahnchen 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tag them for deletion, then. We can consider those separately, but they've no real relevance here... -- Scientizzle 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was replying to the author's point about other webcomics "not slated for deletion" and how it doesn't hold up as an argument. - Hahnchen 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gotchya. And I agree with your point--it's a fine example of a Wikipedia:Pokémon test corollary. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- So I lied, and I'm posting again. I added some more external links to the main entry. Anyway, my previous point was that in the context of the Webcomics Wikiproject, which purportedly seeks "to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia," a webcomic like mine seems notable enough. Interestingly enough, this point correlates with a criticism of the Pokemon defense, which is critical of the notion that " a parallel bar should be set for every type of article." —KillerDeathRobot 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gotchya. And I agree with your point--it's a fine example of a Wikipedia:Pokémon test corollary. -- Scientizzle 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was replying to the author's point about other webcomics "not slated for deletion" and how it doesn't hold up as an argument. - Hahnchen 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tag them for deletion, then. We can consider those separately, but they've no real relevance here... -- Scientizzle 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Articles on neologisms created on Livejournal and MS Paint garbage aren't assets to Wikipedia. If they're not slated for deletion, they should be. - Hahnchen 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I realize that I am biased, as the comic's creator, but I have been looking at other comics that are not slated for deletion, and there are quite a few that I have never heard of. Some have not been reviewed (for whatever reason), but some have been kept on the basis of one or two comments that someone has heard of the comic. I apologize for monopolizing so much of the discussion however, and I will not post here again. —KillerDeathRobot
- Delete Fails to meet the requirements for WP:WEB. Just not notable enough.--Auger Martel 12:07, 17 June 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. Redirects are cheap. Petros471 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bob Johnson (record producer)
User:Lehkost placed {{afd1}} on the article but did not create the AfD page, so I'm creating it for him. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Kimchi.sg 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The guy's notable, and has an article, much better than this, but his name is Bob Johnston. - Fan1967 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect as likely typo. A Nashville Cat of the first order. -- GWO
-
- Comment I really don't see someone typing in that full phrase as a likely typo. Maybe add an entry on the Bob Johnson DAB page, though I'm reluctant to DAB to a different name. There are a lot of Bob Johnsons. Fan1967 14:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- for reason noted by Fan1967. - CPAScott 18:59, 19 June 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. Sango123 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Balletomane
Contested prod by article creator with no reason given. Transwikied dicdef (see wikt:Transwiki:Balletomane), almost orphaned. TheProject 13:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not really any content to speak of. Wickethewok 15:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as dictionary definition Deli nk 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Deli nk. --Starionwolf 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Qi (spirit)
No evidence of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- A number of articles about this product have appeared in the press, so the product would appear to be notable according to Wikipedia's definition for commercial products. The commercial website for this product has a list of articles by newspapers and magazines, here: http://www.qispirits.com/news.htm
What is the best way to show evidence of notability in the article, while adhering to NPV? Disclosure: Qi liqueur is made by a relative of the author. Keep --BTB 14:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) - Delete - Very few products shipped, so doesn't seem very notable to me. Wickethewok 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A few articles about the product launch, but looks awfully limited. Total capacity of 600 bottles a year seems unlikely to become notable, either. Fan1967 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I (the author) updated the page with a fact-checked production number, which is 3000 bottles in 2006. Still keep. --BTB 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - advertising, basicly... -999 (Talk) 20:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not fair. It's (almost!) always helpful to a commercial product to have an entry in Wikipedia. The question here is whether there is evidence of notability.--BTB 06:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Does anyone think this product has sufficient evidence of notability? Speak up, if so. And please take a look at List_of_liqueurs. Should any of them also be deleted? Are you being fair here?--BTB 06:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per BTB's comment "...please take a look at List_of_liqueurs. Should any of them also be deleted? Are you being fair here?". We have articles on many other brands of liqueurs, and this one should be no exception. This seems to be a unique product in being a tea-flavored liqueur, and is thus comparable to the Chinese chajiu. It's exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia is useful for documenting, which can be very difficult to find elsewhere. Either we want to document liqueurs in a complete way, or we want to ignore certain flavors of liqueur, only concentrating on the most popular ones such as Kahlua. The latter mode does not makes sense to me. Badagnani 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable product. Even their own collection of news coverage of Qi, which they certainly have an incentive to emphasize, is miserable. --Ezeu 08:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Who is "they"? The manufacturers have not participated in this discussion at all, so far as I know.--BTB 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- He didn't say they did. He is only stating that they (the company in question) does not have many news items listed on their website. Wickethewok 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oops, that was careless reading on my part, sorry about that. --BTB 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely non-notable as far as volume of cases sold, and the fact that it only seems available in Northern California. Maybe we should start a new category of List of Liqueurs in very limited availability and put it there. Alanmoss 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Badagnani. I don't buy the NN arguments, sour grape gate-keepers. Wikipedia isn't running out room. This is a real product in the real world and at Wikipedia we document such things. -- Stbalbach 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sour grape gate-keepers :) Thats a new one.--Ezeu 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Does every real product get its own article? Does a guy who made a small Pokemon video game and sells it through his website get its own article? Clearly, that would be a "real product in the real world", yet Wikipedia consesus has found that such products do not necessarily merit encyclopedic articles. Basically, the loose requirements for products seem to be that it either garners press attention/reviews or that it must be an otherwise pervasive item. This product does not seem to meet either requirement. Existance is simply not enough to merit an article. Wickethewok 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- strawman, this isn't some guy with a website, this is a commercial product. It is not unusual for hand-crafted artsian products like this to be sold in small batches, it is why certain wines cost so much - there are beers from Germany that are produced locally and by a single producer in relativly low numbers and they may have no audience outside 30-miles from where they are produced but they still notable. I'm not sure the people voting here know a lot about how specialized artisian food products work. As the website says: Qi Tea Liqueur is distributed in Northern California by Artisan Wines & Spirits .. so I guess if it's not mass prodcued by Budweiser or Coors then it's not fit for Wikipedia, because this is a Mega-Corp only encyclopedia. -- Stbalbach 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Heh, yeah... mega-corp only, thats Wikipedia alright... 0_o <-(guy rolling eyes) Also, am I strawman? I always thought of myself more as a wickerman... Anyways, all I was saying was that "commercial product" does not imply notability. Wickethewok 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's available from two Internet retailers as well, not just in northern California. Badagnani 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You still have not address the fact the small-run artisian food products are perfectly legit as Wikipedia articles. Your logic for deleting the article doesn't hold up.-- Stbalbach 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary. Non-notable products (small-run or otherwise) are not legit on Wikipedia, by policy or consensus. Using Wikipedia to promote a product is (and will hopefully continue to be) frowned upon. --Ezeu 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Notability includes as one of its criteria being the most notable exponent of a style. This liqueur is the most notable commercially available liqueur with its primary flavor being tea. Following through with your threats to remove all mention of this liqueur from Wikipedia now prevents our readers (including those particularly interested in various types of liqueurs) from knowing about this tea-flavored liqueur. It's as if it didn't exist--and our readers will be led to believe that there is no commercially available liqueur with a tea flavor. Please think twice about this. Badagnani 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- So every time someone throws a new ingredient into a bottle, the product becomes notable? And by the way, Wikipedia is not the only source of information. If someone is interested in liqueur, they will find this one – unless off course it is an obscure product with barely any distribution. --Ezeu 11:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Notability includes as one of its criteria being the most notable exponent of a style. This liqueur is the most notable commercially available liqueur with its primary flavor being tea. Following through with your threats to remove all mention of this liqueur from Wikipedia now prevents our readers (including those particularly interested in various types of liqueurs) from knowing about this tea-flavored liqueur. It's as if it didn't exist--and our readers will be led to believe that there is no commercially available liqueur with a tea flavor. Please think twice about this. Badagnani 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary. Non-notable products (small-run or otherwise) are not legit on Wikipedia, by policy or consensus. Using Wikipedia to promote a product is (and will hopefully continue to be) frowned upon. --Ezeu 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- You still have not address the fact the small-run artisian food products are perfectly legit as Wikipedia articles. Your logic for deleting the article doesn't hold up.-- Stbalbach 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a proposal. Keep the Qi_(spirit) page, but do not put a link to Qi_(spirit) on the Qi_(disambiguation) page (I already removed it). The rationale is that very few people who search on Qi want information about a liqueur. I think one could even argue that Qi-searchers generally tend, by nature, not to find the evidence of notability to be very compelling for liqueurs, and as a result they might reasonably keep nominating Qi_(spirit) as an article for deletion (if a link existed on the Qi_(disambiguation) page). However, a different group of Wikipedia users is interested in liqueurs, and for these people, the evidence of notability is much more compelling. To help these users find the page on Qi_(spirit), we would keep a link to it atList_of_liqueurs. Thoughts? Could this be a consensus position? --BTB 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree. If it's notable enough, then it should be linked from the disambiguation page. If it's not notable enough, it shouldn't have a page. --Nlu (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's ironic (and a little sad, too) that a Min Nan person would be actively working to suppress information on Wikipedia about a product containing as its main ingredient a tea produced in his/her geographical region. Badagnani 03:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree. If it's notable enough, then it should be linked from the disambiguation page. If it's not notable enough, it shouldn't have a page. --Nlu (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Why is it sad that this editor puts the goals of Wikipedia ahead of the fact that a tea ingredient is produced relatively near them...? Wickethewok 04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK Nlu. What you say about links is in line with the convention for Wikipedia inclusion. Let's drop my proposal. --BTB 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Has anyone changed their mind as a result of this discussion? I don't see any amended Keeps or Deletes, and we're coming to the end of the 5-day review period. --BTB 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, I don't see any reason to change. Limited-distribution, specialty product, available in a small area. Article created by someone closely connected to the producers make this look like an ad for a fairly non-notable product. Fan1967 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry it looks that way. I don't know much about other liqueurs, but I know a lot about this one on account of the close connection, which is why it's an area of expertise I can contribute in.--BTB 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable and is pretty much an advertisement.--Auger Martel 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sigh.--BTB 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nlu: Please do us the favor of asking a new independent admin to do the final evaluation, OK? I've never had an article tagged for deletion before and don't know the tradition, but it seems best if the admin who first tags the article does not also make the final decision. Thanks. --BTB 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't regularly close AfDs anyway; I only do it when things really get backlogged, and it's unlikely to right now. --Nlu (talk) 01:13, 18 June 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. Roy A.A. 14:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Andrew Barlet
Unverified information, and a search on Yahoo! finds only 17 hits, 2 of which are Wikipedia, the others having nothing to do with this individual.(See [31]). A month ago, I sent a request to the author for a source. Also, I posted an "unverified" tag a month ago. Finally, I posted a request for sources on the talk page. There has been no response. As information is unverified, without a reliable source, and questionable in nature, I am recommending the article for deletion. Ataricodfish 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not just for being unverifiable, but also for lack of notability. I mean really, if this guy is so obscure that even google can't find him, I don't think he really belongs on Wikipedia, and no real claims to fame are noted anywhere in the article, which looks largely like a misplaced obituary.
- Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 14:20, 12 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Smackdown! Spoiler
Smackdown! spoilers (note non-proper noun capitalization) are regular features on a bunch of websites, they're self-explanatory, and they are not syndicated the way the article implies they are. If anything about these spoilers can be said, it could be said on the Smackdown! article. hateless 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was picturing wrestlers with aerodynamic wings on their backs. Since that's not the case, I'd suggest a merge and redirect to the main Smackdown! article, though I wouldn't be opposed to deleting this outright. --Elkman 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete this article. It is still a work in progress and the Smackdown spoiler is a major part of WWE Smackdown! for the simple fact that many wrestling fans read the Spoiler before Smackdown! and FYI The Smackdown Spoiler only appears on non WWE websites and nowhere in my article do I imply the Smackdown Spoiler! is syndicated. I know there are various different websites with their on Smackdown Spoilers and I will specify that in the article. All I need is a few days to gather all my information. I even have the years that the Smackdown Spoiler was read on the WWE website by Lucas from 2000-2001. Hey, if you absolutely feel that you have to delete this article then go ahead but I will be putting it right back up with more information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyAttack (talk • contribs)
- Comment: You can put your data on the main Smackdown! article, there's no need for a separate page. And if you don't want to imply there's one "Spoiler" that runs on different sites, don't capitalize the word. If the article is deleted, don't recreate the article, it'll just get speedy deleted instead. hateless 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The page seems useless. Plus in order to keep kayfabe, members of WP:PW including myself don't particularly like to include spoilers in professional wrestling articles. --Oakster (Talk) 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Oakster. Kimchi.sg 14:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Smackdown, lots of shows have spoilers, but if an announcer did indeed read these on the show as part of a regular feature, than it is indeed notable, but still thiers no reason why this can't be included in the main article. Deathawk 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and merge with Smackdown!. This doesn't need its own article. Voice of Treason 23:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This could just be one sentence in the main Smackdown! article and you've got it covered. SubSeven 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The content of this article is basically its self-explanatory title, namely, that spoilers about Smackdown! can be found between the taping date and the airdate. --Metropolitan90 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Memebot
dicdef, neologism, nn. Delete. KleenupKrew 22:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dumb, dumb idea! MEME itself is a neologism. To delete this article on the basis of neologism policy is just obscenely stupid. I'm certain secondary sources could be found that mention the word Memebot. It's a widespread memetical concept.
- maybe put an entry in wiktionary, then link all existing references to the wiktionary article for clarifcation. otherwise how are all the new members of alt.satanism going to get up to speed? it is a *regularly used term in memetics*. or we should just ditch wikipedia entries on 'meme' and 'memetics' itself (i agree, neologism argument invalid) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.13.147 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep it -- I found it valuable to have this entry here and linked through memetic engineering. It describes a great term for a great concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.46.5.164 (talk • contribs) .
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nn neo. Google returns a bunch of references to a free webhosting service, memebot.com, which one of the anons above also added into an article, so I'm suspicious of advertising here. Fan1967 14:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's unsourced and seems farcical, to me. PJM 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the neologism . --Starionwolf 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. -- Docether 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research; cites no reliable sources. If this term was actually used in serious studies of memetics, surely an academic citation (even if from a fringe journal) could be found. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Voice of Treason 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Voice of Treason. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, or maybe redirect to memetics. --Zoz (t) 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I agrey with 200.138.33.29 or at least merge it with meme --alex 03:01, 17 June 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. Sango123 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jay Amari
Was tagged as copyvio but no source provided, I can't find one as well. But this interview is definitely not an encyclopedia article. Conscious 14:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As unencyclopedic content. Wickethewok 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Deli nk 15:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - just a random interview, no encyclopedic content. - DrunkenSmurf 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio - it says quite clearly it's from the Savannah Morning News. That's obviously copyrighted, and the source may have gone offline. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. Self-declared copyvio. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirected to bread by User:Fang Aili. Kimchi.sg 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stale_Bread
Was already deleted in January - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stale_Bread - Selfinformation 14:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as {{db-repost}} or failing that, {{db-band}} as this stub doesn't assert the band's notability. To the nominator: just tag it for CSD right away next time. :) Kimchi.sg 14:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Do everything that doesn't need AFD first, then go ahead and nominate what's needed. Petros471 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NASP
The "National Association of Staredown Professionals". Non-notable - the only mentions of it in Google are its own web page, this Wikipedia entry and a Craigslist posting. The NASP page originally redirected to Rockwell X-30 (the National Aero-Space Plane), the writer of this page has just dropped their content over the top of this. The redirects from N.a.s.p. and National Association of Staredown Professionals should be deleted, NASP should be reverted to redirect to the Rockwell X-30. --McGeddon 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's an association for this kind of thing? Seriously? Some people have too much time on their hands. Delete. --Elkman 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- If it used to be a redirect, revert and delete the other things that redirect to it per nom. (Technically, I don't think this belongs on AfD since the main request isn't a deletion, and the other two belong on WP:RFD, but I'm not sure where the request belongs, or if the nominator should just have been WP:BOLD.) Confusing Manifestation 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, good point, I didn't realise the revert issue until after I'd made the AfD call (the second half of my paragraph is an edit five minutes later). I should really have reverted it boldly and placed the content on National Association of Staredown Professionals, nominating that for deletion, but I won't confuse the issue by doing that now. --McGeddon 15:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Revert to the version 2006-02-24 23:28:32 Willy Logan (redirect). Cheers. --Starionwolf 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You guys clearly have too much time on your hands. Who are you to say what's notable? Keep it. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.255.3 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia has some notability guidelines for websites - generally speaking, your site needs to have been significant enough to have been mentioned in the press, to merit a full encyclopaedia entry of its own. --McGeddon 02:40, 15 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Glory Days Grill
Not relevant at all to history, fiction, culture, etc. No revelant links as well to it. Missvain 14:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) MissVain 10:45 12 June 2006 UTC
- Keep Medium-sized restaurant chain. 24,900 Google hits for "Glory Days Grill" in quotes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I wouldn't call a chain with 16 stores "medium sized"-Deathawk 18:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. This is an obvious advertisement full of unsourced POV. BlueValour 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Really good food (I've been there a few times, going there for my birthday in 2 days), but this should be sent back to the kitchen as uncooked SPAM. Wildthing61476 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advert for a small chain of restaurants; non-notable as per WP:CORP. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The article is very POV, and its topic is non-notable. Carpenoctem(talk)
- Keep, but clean up POV. Madd4Max 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough. 199 19:41, 15 June 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. Sango123 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of grunge subgenres
Only one of these genres (post-grunge) is verified to exist. The Electronic Post-Grunge and Grungewave articles should also be deleted, as they can not be confirmed to exist. LGagnon 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All as above. (save post grunge). Fake sub-genres. -- GWO
- Delete burninate this. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 13 June 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. Sango123 15:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crossover Comic Archive
This article is for a webcomic and forum that doesn't meet WP:WEB. The site itself is unranked on Alexa and its forum has just 75 members. I've already copied the article over to Comixpedia at Comixpedia:The Crossover Comic Archive. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:WEB. - Tangotango 16:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gaiash Edit: They used to have other forums with more members. Its just less people have joined this particular forum. The CCA is quite popular actually.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaiash (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: I recommend giving Comixpedia a lookover. It's similar to Wikipedia, but it's specifically dedicated to webcomics. They probably have three or four times as many webcomic articles as Wikipedia does, in fact. As I mentioned, the article is already over there and linked up from their list of webcomics. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gaiash: Yeah but there are Web Comic pages on Wiki, like Snafu Comics or Ctrl+Alt+Del
- Comment: I recommend giving Comixpedia a lookover. It's similar to Wikipedia, but it's specifically dedicated to webcomics. They probably have three or four times as many webcomic articles as Wikipedia does, in fact. As I mentioned, the article is already over there and linked up from their list of webcomics. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails - Hahnchen 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no WP:Reliable sources, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 04:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete, we need a Crossover Comic Archive article here on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.214.113 (talk • contribs) .
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Palmerston Primary School
there is concensus that high schools can have a WP article but we should not open the door for primary schools BlueValour 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nothing very special about the school, even after looking at its website. Kimchi.sg 17:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non notable school. --Eivindt@c 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Palmerston, Australian Capital Territory. This school was the first to open in the Gungahlin District in the ACT. However, most of the verifiable articles in an Australia New Zealand database related to a similar named school in the Northern Territory. It would therefore remain a stub and would be best within the article on the suburb itself. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. --Roisterer 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and continue to expand. Silensor 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. ALKIVAR™ 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs expansion, not deletion. -- Usgnus 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it will expand this is a wiki Yuckfoo 22:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep -- organisations that are permament, and involving significant numbers of people are notable. The article needs a bit of expansion though. GB 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of other primary schools have been kept, and this one should be kept as well. Once that is established this nonsense can finally end. CalJW 05:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per Capitalistroadster and is standard practice with other Canberra schools. Allow section to develop within suburb article. When (and if) substantial content, then can be broken out into own article.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable. Golfcam 17:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, most schools are notable. bbx 06:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Strong precedent to include schools. Can be verified and is a subject of great importance.--Auger Martel 12:09, 17 June 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 both articles. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Liozna Synagogue and Larger than Life (books)
This person seems to fail notability standards. Avi 16:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am also adding to this list Larger than Life (books) as bundled for deletion as Not notable, vanity press . -- Avi 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, WP:VSCA, WP:WING, WP:NOT -- Avi 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify: *Delete both. -- Avi 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Against Deletion, This person is a Rabbi, Author, Historian, Radio Host, Museum Curator, Scholar. While many outside the Orthodox and even many within the community may not have heard of him or know much about him, this is a very small, but bona fide and notable personage and should definately not be deleted. JJ211219 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- So are members of my immediate family, JJ, (one is a Rabbi, a Doctor, a historian, a scholar, a published author of both books and tape series, and a speaker who has been flown around the US and world at various times to speak and officiate at various religious events), that does not make him notable either. I am most definitely part of the Orthodox community, and I have heard in passing of this Lubavitcher break-off, and among everyone I know, in the grand scheme of Orthodox and Chasidic tradition, it is considered an ephemeral and passing event. The fact that someone is important in their immediate circle does not imply wiki-notability. Please look here Wikipedia:Notability (people) and see that even if he has 100 chasidim, that will not make him notable. The average professor has more than 100 students every year, and still fails notability. Even house bands can have 100 groupies and still fail (and be speedied). If this person gains a following of tens of thousands, publishes sichos or sefarim, and begins to get mentioned by the Moetzes or the Agudah or the like, then you may have something. As of now Adin Steinsaltz and Shmuel Butman have more followers, and you see neither of them here. Steinsaltz actually would be notable in my opinion based on the popularity of his Shas. -- Avi 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - author of multiple books, it appears.Delete per Crzrussian. Kimchi.sg 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- Strong Delete Both: self-named breakaway "Rebbe", 2 books published by "Chasidic Historical Productions", which is an Orthodox publishing house I have never heard of - and there are very few of them. "Marginal" sums it up. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete LioznaDelete Both- see rationale on discussion page - Wikipedia is not the place to record off-the-cuff occurrences that are really very minor in the grand scheme of things. Many thanks, Nesher 18:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Comment on Larger than Life (books) - I'm undecided on this one and will remain neutral until convinced otherwise.SEE ABOVE Nesher 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Both not notable. Passing event, with no major or long term repercussions. If we were to document every author of an unauthorized biography, there would be no end to the number of useless wikipedia articles.--Meshulam 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. At least the Liozna article must be kept. I'm not sure about the book article. But the Liozna article definitely has to be kept. --Daniel575 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Both not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems fairly notable. Madd4Max 14:34, 15 June 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. Petros471 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vigilant Weather
Deprodded: The article makes no claims to notability that would save it under WP:WEB. I have no knowledge of the creators motives (it's his first edit), but this looks like googlebombing. Chaser T 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looks like a VSCA, feels like a VSCA, smells like a VSCA. Kimchi.sg 18:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I just had to do a Javascript-assisted nullification of the many external links scattered everywhere in the text. My eyes were hurting bad looking at 'em. Kimchi.sg 18:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like spam. SnowFire 11:45, 18 June 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. Petros471 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of travel books
Half of these books don't have entries, the list is scattershot with no particular rhyme or reason for any particular book's inclusion, the list as a whole would be absurdly large if we included all travel books, and we already have a category for travel books. Irongargoyle 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 18:16, 12 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kinderset Early Years Nursery School
Nursery schools are non-notable. BlueValour 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nothing very remarkable about this school. Kimchi.sg 17:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete at least this "school" has some chance of being deleted. --Eivindt@c 22:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. Kimchi.sg 18:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ryan Etheridge
Article is a hoax. It was previously deleted, but was just recreated Varco 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per nomination. BlueValour 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy this as repost, article tagged and creator warned. Kimchi.sg 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's gone..--Andeh 18:26, 12 June 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. Petros471 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vigilante (band)
This page is copied and pasted from http://www.thepunishermerchandise.com/music/vigilante/vigilante.html. --דניאל - Dantheman531 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Which was also copied and pasted from their homepage (What should I do? I'm just trying to help) --Listeel 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You don't have to do anything. If it is decided that this article should be deleted, an admin will delete the page. --דניאל - Dantheman531 17:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Great help, can you point me to a guide on how to make articles please? --Listeel 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would start with WP:STUB and WP:STYLE. --דניאל - Dantheman531 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, please remember not to bite the newbie. Listeel, content found on websites unless explicitely stated that it can be distributed freely should not be reproduced on Wikipedia, as it's a copyright violation. Check Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, WP:FAIR. Equendil Talk 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Great help, can you point me to a guide on how to make articles please? --Listeel 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:BAND (creating a song that appeared on YTMND doesn't count). Its copyvio too.Here's to hoping for no sock/meat puppet invasion because of this band's minor association with YTMND. Kevin_b_er 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as copyright violation and notability issue. Equendil Talk 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - rm YTMND bullshits - Hahnchen 16:22, 19 June 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. Petros471 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ROSI
Non-notable extranet? Artw 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable webapp, having a mascot doesn't save it in any way. I concur with this edit summary: why is this an article? [32] Kimchi.sg 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, single-campus application. If it were on a few campuses, I'd be more inclined to keep it. Ted 19:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable and doesn't meet WP:WEB requirements.--Auger Martel 12:10, 17 June 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. Postdlf 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cancer Bats
A DRV consensus concluded that the previous AfD deletion of this article should be overturned in light of new evidence. Please consult the DRV to examine the new evidence before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - evidence presented at the DRV by User:Badlydrawnjeff is convincing, viz. [33] and [34], among others, shows them to satisfy at least 1 criteria of WP:BAND - which is all that's needed for a sign of notability. Kimchi.sg 17:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Im updated it right now with all the new stuff from the album to the television appearances. Thanks for all the help so far you guys, I really appreciate it Avenged Evanfold 02:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per my evidence at DRV which was linked here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 13 June 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. Petros471 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fugue for Tinhorns
The page contains very little information, and what information it does have doesn't belong on Wikipedia Ixistant 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasons as for If I Were A Bell below. Irongargoyle 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Guys and Dolls per Irongargoyle. Kimchi.sg 18:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Guys and Dolls - not as significant a song in its own right as (say) You're The Top. Tevildo 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The song has a life apart from the musical and deserves a separate article. Fg2 13:58, 13 June 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. Petros471 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] If I Were A Bell
The article is about a single song from the musical 'Guys and Dolls'. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ixistant 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Guys and Dolls is one of the best known musicals ever. I would say the song is definitely notable. Irongargoyle 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Should be moved to If I Were a Bell. Irongargoyle 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the Guys and Dolls article per nom. The musical is notable, but on its own the song isn't. Kimchi.sg 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Kimchi.sg Tevildo 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. There isn't anything worth merging into Guys and Dolls here. —Cuiviénen 21:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The song has a life apart from the musical and deserves a separate article. Fg2 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The song most definitely does have a life of its own. The jazz giant Miles Davis has recorded it on several occasions and it was a staple of his stage show for many years. It has been recorded by others jazz and non-jazz as an instrumental and as a song. The chord structure is appealing to jazzmen as a base for improvisation. Perhaps there is a musicologist out there who can explain why this is so. The lyric too is worthy of study. It is basically monosyllabic, wheras Frank Loesser is usually polysyllabic. There is a need on Wikipedia for quality articles about quality songs, and this is certainly one. Guy 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think all of the songs that Fiona Apple has recorded are quality, but I also know that not all of them deserve articles. Extraordinary Machine 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- But surely the variety of artistes making recordings of particular songs suggests the songs each to be worthy of an article regardless of the quality of the particular song? (Look at all the ghastly versions of My Way which has an article). An encyclopaedia needs to be all-inclusive, then people will turn to it for reference. If there are gaps then people will not use it as a reliable source of first choice, and that defeats the object of having an encyclopaedia in the first place. In my opinion this is a problem with Wikipedia coverage of popular song and songwriters, particularly those working between 1920 and 1950 and the stuff they wrote. Even those not on the pop music mainstream since then are not uniformly well treated. If the Frank Loesser article was as good as those for Phil Collins or Stevie Wonder for example, then it would undoubtedly take in this particular song, but I still think the song merits a stand-alone article, as it is a nodal point between jazz and Broadway, Miles Davis and Frank Loesser, Hollywood and various singers. Guys and Dolls is for many people one of the most important musicals written, ditto Miles Davis (to say nothing of sidekick John Coltrane) in the canon of jazz. Guy 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I know what you mean and I think you are making some excellent points; I just didn't agree with the statement "There is a need on Wikipedia for quality articles about quality songs". Extraordinary Machine 11:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, EM, that was me with my politician's hat on. There is a hierarchy here, and there will be many users with their own particular interests focused at different levels. A generalist will look at the Broadway/Hollywood musical and will need a brief resume of the major creators and their shows. This will lead to more detailed discussions of individuals which will include biography and career highlights and discuss the major milestones. Then the topic becomes more specialised, and discussion will highlight individual shows and projects, focusing on the material (songs and book), discussion of the plot, the personalities involved, why it worked/failed and other relevant issues. For many shows, different productions are worth separate articles, Guys and Dolls is certainly one, My Fair Lady is another. My own personal view is that all shows of this magnitude ought to be considered at some depth. The perfect illustration of what I mean is the magisterial book by Alan Jay Lerner entitled The Musical Theatre: A Celebration (ISBN 0070372322) which is now out of print, but easily available. The question then arises as to who is going to do this, I am capable, but I have to earn a living, which limits my time. And then there are the individual songs. Not all need an article each, but the stand-out ones do, for Guys and Dolls, If I Were A Bell is a prime example, along with Luck Be a Lady, Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat and possibly the title song. If I Were A Bell is sung in the show by Sister Sarah, the Salvationist. The lyric builds in intensity until the final verse: "Ask me how do I feel, ask me now that we're fondly caressing, Well, if I were a salad I know I'd be splashing my dressing". Is this eroticism, or what? Perhaps I ought to write it up more fully in the article. This show, these songs, this writer are all among my favourites. On a wider point, under the heading of completeness and comprehensiveness which I raised earlier, I think Wikipedia should have an individual article at least for every song which has topped the Billboard charts and the UK equivalent. I agree that some of these articles would be very thin, but doing this would create a resource which would be widely used in the industry and the spin-off from this would be of great benefit to the Wikipedia project as a whole. Guy 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I know what you mean and I think you are making some excellent points; I just didn't agree with the statement "There is a need on Wikipedia for quality articles about quality songs". Extraordinary Machine 11:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- But surely the variety of artistes making recordings of particular songs suggests the songs each to be worthy of an article regardless of the quality of the particular song? (Look at all the ghastly versions of My Way which has an article). An encyclopaedia needs to be all-inclusive, then people will turn to it for reference. If there are gaps then people will not use it as a reliable source of first choice, and that defeats the object of having an encyclopaedia in the first place. In my opinion this is a problem with Wikipedia coverage of popular song and songwriters, particularly those working between 1920 and 1950 and the stuff they wrote. Even those not on the pop music mainstream since then are not uniformly well treated. If the Frank Loesser article was as good as those for Phil Collins or Stevie Wonder for example, then it would undoubtedly take in this particular song, but I still think the song merits a stand-alone article, as it is a nodal point between jazz and Broadway, Miles Davis and Frank Loesser, Hollywood and various singers. Guys and Dolls is for many people one of the most important musicals written, ditto Miles Davis (to say nothing of sidekick John Coltrane) in the canon of jazz. Guy 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think all of the songs that Fiona Apple has recorded are quality, but I also know that not all of them deserve articles. Extraordinary Machine 23:56, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talmadge Blevins
Page was originally tagged for speedy, but I objected to the tag on the talk page since the article did assert notability. A third person replaced the speedy with prod with the reason that the subject was nn. I don't think prod is appropriate in this case because the creator did object to the speedy on the talk page, so even though he didn't remove the prod it seems there is controversy over the proposal. Thus, I submit the page for AFD for procedural reasons and abstain from comment. hateless 17:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I speedied this one. IGN is a neato website, but the editor biographies it has spawned in Wikipedia all represent one-hit wonders with no other claim to notability than their work with IGN. In short, these people are not notable in and of themselves (as their bios make clear). I suggest merging their bios into the IGN article (itself suffering from poor quality) pending developments in their individual careers that rate them worthy of their own biography. Rklawton 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Rklawton. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rachel Mayer
Non-notable. Hasn't won anything. BlueValour 17:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Olympians are inherently notable. --Fang Aili talk 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per Fang Aili. Afonso Silva 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - prolonged involvement in Olympics at both competitor and planning levels suggests a strong degree of notability. Kimchi.sg 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Monicasdude convinced me re notability of Olympians Dlyons493 Talk 19:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments about notability of Olympians. --Starionwolf 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above comments concerning inherent notability of Olympic Games participants. Eddie.willers 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Meets WP:BIO, Olympic team member, competing at the "highest level of amateur sports". —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:BIO by competing as an Olympic team member. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:18, 13 June 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. Petros471 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zambor
Delete Non-notable. Non-encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - next thing we know, someone will create an article for Mathbot. Kimchi.sg 18:31, 12 June 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. Petros471 19:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References to The Prisoner in popular culture
From my proposed deletion, which was removed: "This was split off from The Prisoner because the trivia was getting longer than the main article. While I sympathize with editors overwhelmed with well-meaning but worthless contributions, I don't think this makes an encyclopedia article, and much of it is wishful speculation." Erik the Rude 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
mergeDelete per wikipedia is WP:NOT a number! it is a free encyclopedia! Ydam 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- Keep. No merge because there was a reason why it was split off in the first place. It should be shortened. There is amble verifiable evidence of The Prisoner having a wide influence on pop culture, not the least of which is The Matrix. Heck, even the Simpsons has paid tribute to the show. Shorten by all means, but I think it's worthy of its own article. 23skidoo 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think you forgot to mention that the reason it was split off is that this indiscriminate list of information would hurt The Prisoner's chances of becoming a featured article. If it doesn't belong in a featured article, I don't see how it belongs in its own stand-alone article. While The Prisoner is worthy of an article, a list of every time it's been mentioned in a TV show or other media really isn't, in my opinion. I don't think this information merits its own article. It should have been kept in the main article and been trimmed down or simply deleted before the FA review. Dumping the not-so-good portions of an article into the rest of Wikipedia just to make the main article look better is a bad idea. What was wrong with just getting rid of it? Good editing involves erasing and trimming, too. Erik the Rude 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment There's waaaaaaaaay too much done on "trivial references in popular culture" or "appearances in popular media" sections in Wikipedia. The likes of Simpsons/Family Guy etc etc are the worst offenders (remember these are shows which have one of their main roles is to make references to other media/pop culture). Much or most of such sections/lists are entirely banal fancruft to the point of non-notability (true trivia). Seeing yet another screenshot of a reference made to a person in a Simpsons episode in a Wikipedia article about that person is in my all-time top ten worst Wikipedia experiences Bwithh 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete - Long lists of every single reference to a show are effectively a form of fancruft. Artw 19:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per 23skidoo. This is a good article demonstrating the Prisoner's impact on popular culture. Alternatively, could be merged back to the Prisoner, which is where this should be discussed (i.e. not on AfD). --JJay 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- One: This is not a good article, and I seriously doubt that many people would agree with you that it is a good article.
-
-
-
- Two: The Prisoner's impact on popular culture should be discussed in the main Prisoner article, if at all. It doesn't stand alone.
- Three: I don't see the problem with discussing a merge here, as it's done all the time. However, the editors of The Prisoner obviously don't want it to be merged.
- It's too bad there's not a Triviapedia where all this stuff can go, but there's not, so it needs to be deleted. Erik the Rude 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You made all these points in your original nom when you used the word "worthless". You expanded on your thinking in your comment to 23skidoo above. There is no need to repeat your excessively negative opinion of the article. I would suggest you refrain from badgering everyone who disagrees with you. --JJay 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- This is a discussion, isn't it? Well, I'm discussing my views. Quit trying to silence me and tell me how to speak, JJay. Erik the Rude 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I am neither trying to "silence" you, nor telling you "how to speak". As indicated, though, I find the term "worthless" needlessly agressive. I generally prefer to assume that the users who contributed the material found some worth in their contribution. To me that is part of WP:AGF. I also found some of the material here interesting. I think it sheds some light on the Prisoner phenomenon. On these points we disagree, although this was probably clear with my initial comment (so I apologize for endlessly discussing my views) --JJay 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've noticed you make frequent emotional objections to the words people use, and you use this as a tactic to get the debate off-topic. It was foolish of me to fall for this trick of yours, but you won't fool me again, so don't try it. Erik the Rude 07:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Erik, it's your behavior here that is inappropriate. JJay is being more respectful to you than you deserve with such discussion-poisoners as "you use this as a tactic to get the debate off-topic" and "this trick of yours". -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Strong Delete Fancruft/listcruft... Also appears to have a significant amount of inaccurate/dubious original research. The most significant and verifiable pieces should be merged with the main Prisoner article if they are not already there.~ Bwithh
- Keep I see nothing wrong with it. Dylan 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge Most of this is just junk OR (what the hell is this: "The Clash B-side "The Prisoner" may be a reference to the show although the lyrics are oblique and do not seem to refer to it in any direct way"). Merge the noteworthy items and trash the rest. EVula 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup (trim out "may or may not be" references, etc.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete bone's connected to the not encyclopedic bone . . . I'd rather see this dealt with in the actual Prisoner article. However, rather than just a list of all references, summarize common references and give a couple of representative examples. ScottW 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per WP:NOT and 23skidoo, the subject has had a legitimately notable impact on pop culture and we should document that fact. Silensor 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but cleanup. bbx 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep I would like to see a more encyclopedic article, possibly with the title Influence of The Prisoner on popular culture, with more exposition on why it is influential, rather than listing every reference to it ever. So I think that this article is a start, but needs improvement. --Joelmills 04:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge probably should be cleaned-up to only include notable refernces, too. Other shows have their references on their main page. No reason to split it off here.
- Keep but it needs a lot of tidying to make it encyclopedic. Richard W.M. Jones 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge the notable references in this so-called article with the main article. While a lot of these references are interesting, most of them are just ridiculous. The Battlestar Galactica entry is not a reference but a mere coincidence, while the Matrix entry is mostly speculation into the common symbology between the two works. But most of all, a lot of these references are not actually references, but just vague and brief homages. We should remove all of the speculation, coincidences and homages, keeping all the direct references, and merge the remaining references with the main article. Brash 19:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Battlestar Galactica entry is not a reference but a mere coincidence -- really? According to Number Six (Battlestar Galactica), Battlestar Galactica: The Official Companion says it's intentional. What's your source for declaring it a mere coincidence? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- My source was mere cynicism and the fact that the entry was not cited. Actually, by sheer coincidence I was reading that huge 2003 interview with Ron Moore today, and I noticed that he said the following: "She's named Number 6 because at that point I was discovering, for the first time, The Prisoner on DVD – which I had never seen. And I was just in love with The Prisoner, so I decided to name her Number 6." So you're right. But this reveals an even bigger problem with this list: none of the entries on this page are cited, and nothing is immediately verifiable. That's not very encyclopedic. Brash 04:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's a reason to clean the article up, not to delete it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was suggesting merging, not deleting. Unless you think you can clean up and flesh out fourty five plus references and make them strong enclyclopedic entries, I think we need to clean up what we have, cut out what is not important or not relevant, and then merge with the original article. Brash 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's a reason to clean the article up, not to delete it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- My source was mere cynicism and the fact that the entry was not cited. Actually, by sheer coincidence I was reading that huge 2003 interview with Ron Moore today, and I noticed that he said the following: "She's named Number 6 because at that point I was discovering, for the first time, The Prisoner on DVD – which I had never seen. And I was just in love with The Prisoner, so I decided to name her Number 6." So you're right. But this reveals an even bigger problem with this list: none of the entries on this page are cited, and nothing is immediately verifiable. That's not very encyclopedic. Brash 04:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Battlestar Galactica entry is not a reference but a mere coincidence -- really? According to Number Six (Battlestar Galactica), Battlestar Galactica: The Official Companion says it's intentional. What's your source for declaring it a mere coincidence? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Bwithh Deleuze 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; if there's anything in the article that's of genuine significance and isn't in the main article, then it can be merged. I agree completely with the nominator, Bwithh, et al. — Wikipedia is submerging under the weight of trivial fancruft. We're surely not trying to include everything that can be said about everything, nor to reproduce every Internet fansite; we're supposed to be writing an encyclopædia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Riddled with original research and the ability of the article to source its claims with constructive references is questionable to say the least.--Auger Martel 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Could someone please explain to me why we need a large entry in Wikipedia concerning when and how The Prisoner has been mentioned in other television shows and other media? I haven't seen a single reasonable argument to keep this stuff. Is every instance of a Wikipedia-worthy subject being mentioned on TV automatically worth recording for posterity? To me, this level of obsessive interest in trivia is harmful and counterproductive to the Wikipedia project. Erik the Rude 07:42, 18 June 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. Yanksox (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Action Girl Comics
No details, no claim of notability (possible vanity?), no links in or out except the stub tag SoM 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment you forgot the afd tag on the article - I've fixed it now Ydam 18:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I got the "We have lost session data, please try again" message and didn't notice. :/ Ta - SoM 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep and expand - published by possibly notable cartoonist Sarah Dyer. [35] Kimchi.sg 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep and expand per Kimchi.sg. A notable comic, has been mentioned in published commentary on comic books (The Great Women Superheroes) by Trina Robbins. This stub is quite uninformative, though. Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I added a bit more information to the stub. Smerdis of Tlön 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I've seen it as an actual physical artifact in shops, which is probably a good sign of notability for a comic. Artw 23:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is real and dos have distribution. It needs some work, though.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace of Sevens (talk • contribs)
- Keep and expand. SLG is a notable indie publisher. Postdlf 15:00, 17 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Faithclipart.com
- Delete, this page fails
WP:SPAM andWP:WEB. --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The edited version fixes the advertisement problem but the article still fails WP:WEB. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as per nomination. Bishop Brennan 18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tijuana BrassE@ 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- DrunkenSmurf 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It isn't very exciting, but I have tried to clean up the article so that it's closer to a NOPV. Within its own market niche, it's notable. Dull, but notable. TruthbringerToronto 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — There are many online sites for faith-related clipart, both free and for cost. There is no assertion of notability. Even with cleanup, it reads as an ad. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If there are any independent reliable sources that discuss this site, that discussion is hard to find. I found one debatable case in the top 120 google results. So it still fails WP:WEB. GRBerry 03:57, 13 June 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 as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bra boys
Anon User:220.239.134.188 slapped {{afdx}} on this article but can't create the nomination page, so here I'm doing it for him. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Kimchi.sg 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note. Previously nominated, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bra boys. Result was a pretty overwhelming Keep. Fan1967 19:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, they unfortunately appear to be notable, as per the previous AfD consensus. Sandstein 21:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep - are very well known. No notability issues whatsoever. (JROBBO 00:34, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peach Blossom School
Non-notable. Profoundly unremarkable pre-nursery school. BlueValour 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. I would hope that even the most ardent "all schools are notable" advocate would agree that a pre-nursery school is not notable. Agent 86 18:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete,
my school-saving powers have deserted meseems there's nothing special about this school. Worse still, it's all unsourced. Kimchi.sg 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC) - Delete per nom. --Eivindt@c 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pre-nursery? I think there's only one such school in the world that might be notable... There's a preschool in New York that I read about (don't remember the name) that costs four times what my university cost. This is definitely not notable though, and probably unverifiable. Grandmasterka 07:20, 14 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bill O'Reilly controversies
The page is inherently unencyclopedic, containing incidents that can easily be incorporated into the Bill O'Reilly main page. Stanley011 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment this nomination seems like a cross between a WP:POINT violation, and vandalism, based on this user's other contributions, I'm leaning towards the latter--152.163.100.200 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- (Personal attack removed)Stanley011 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Every single one of my edits have been constructive--I have NEVER vandalized a page on wikipedia and I refer everyone to my contributions page to see the many constructive edits I have made. Stanley011 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Now that's the way you should have responded at the beginning of this. And for what it's worth, I have checked your user page and I am impressed. And I don't believe your putting this article up for deletion is a violation of WP:POINT - as can be seen, progress on the article is continuing even as we debate, so no disruption of the article has taken place. Kasreyn 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- 152.163.100.200 is on an AOL connection with a rotating IP address. That IP address is shared with dozens, possibly hundreds of other AOL subscribers. It is not possible, at Wikipedia, to determine which contributions by that IP came from which AOL subscriber. (AOL IP addresses pose a challenge to Wikipedia's warning system which hasn't yet been overcome.) Kasreyn 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment this nomination seems like a cross between a WP:POINT violation, and vandalism, based on this user's other contributions, I'm leaning towards the latter--152.163.100.200 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, at 51k and with 20 or so footnotes, the article can NOT be easily incorporated into the main article. The article seems well-sourced but there are NPOV issues which warrant editing, and perhaps a few sections should be removed, but I don't see anything non-encyclopedic about it if you view it as an extension of the main article, esp. for a non-paper encyclopedia like WP is. hateless 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, needs hard editing though. BlueValour 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per BlueValour --Pilot|guy (roger that) 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Over the past week several editors have been discussing ways to make this situation better. Please read the talk page for details. Joining that discussion with your concerns may have been a better option than an AfD nomination. -MrFizyx 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but edit the non neutral point of view. --Starionwolf 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Incorporate Edit and include on O'Reilly's main page. There's no need to have people linking and redirecting all over for this. Blintz 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Actually, yes there is a reason to have people linking and redirecting for this: WP:SIZE. . BoojiBoy 21:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm aware of that rule, but I don't think that this would violate it. Besides, that rule isn't always followed (history articles, especially), and articles are more effective if they're able to develop as a unit, not with chunks of text being arbitrarily removed and filed elsewhere. In any case, if the article on O'Reilly's controversies is as long as the article on O'Reilly in general, some editing needs to be done. Blintz 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Actually, yes there is a reason to have people linking and redirecting for this: WP:SIZE. . BoojiBoy 21:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Asbl 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As my primary vote. If Keep is defeated, I would strongly favor Merge over Delete. The material should be kept. Kasreyn 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Temporary Keep but edit. Most of the material is for "controversies" that are not significant enough to note. The article is too long and reads like a blog rather than an encyclopedia article. And it's not like we've seen the last controversy involving Bill... Keep long enough to use the materia to create separate articles about the few topics that were truly notable controversies. "Bill O'Reilly controversies" could become a list or a category. --JChap 02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I found my way to the page because I wanted to read about the topic. Far too much material to incorporate into the main article. --Grace 07:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The controversies are the main thing that makes Bill O'Reilly notable and there's just too much for the main page. Ace of Sevens 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep hateless, MrFizyx, and BoojiBoy, expressed my opinions exactly. Lawyer2b 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up. MrFizyx has expressed my opinion. MrMurph101 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up. Information is definitely useful but does need editing. Jlee562 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Jnelson09
- Keep and clean up by removing superfluous information. Incorporate a more concise verion of the resulting page on the main Bill O'Reilly article. Sysrpl 13:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Temporary Keep but edit, per the reasons noted by JChap. --Dcflyer 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Heavy POV fest, I'm afraid there's no way to clean it enough to ever get rid of the POV----Fellow-edit 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note: User:Fellow-edit's first edit was on Stanley011's talk page at 22:46, 14 June 2006:
- please help me with this article [Ann Coulter], I'm new and im afraid if i try to edit it, the liberals guarding it will rip me to shreds--Fellow-edit 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations on finding AfD in five minutes and how to use templates in 20 (see the history of this AfD page)! --JChap 23:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- lol You sir, have a wicked sense of humor. Kasreyn 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Most of the liberals you seem so frightened of are actually pretty reasonable if you give them half a chance. If you're the newbie you claim to be stick around and you'll find this out. --JChap 23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User:Fellow-edit's first edit was on Stanley011's talk page at 22:46, 14 June 2006:
- Keep - First they take everything out of the Bill O'Reilly article which could even be percieved as controversial, then they try to delete it. savidan(talk)
(e@) 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment This article was originally split from the O'Reilly article because of the size of the section. The article has been up for quite a while now. Whoever "they" are do not seem to be here since the majority of votes are keep. MrMurph101 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. - Glen Stollery 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I don't think that there is any way to write an article that is anti-person without being POV. Most entries could be merged, while others amount to nothing or a sound bite at best.--wtfunkymonkey 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or else Incorporate the solid content on controversies in the main article. There was a minor edit war in the Malmedy massacre article about O'Reilly's comments, and we managed to keep it down by pointing to the Bill_O'Reilly_controversies#Malmedy_massacre section. We need a place to put well-edited, well-sourced coverage of what O'Reilly says. It's better that it be in articles about O'Reilly than in articles about every subject O'Reilly mentions. If you delete this article, it's vital that the solid content including Malmedy move into the main O'Reilly article. --Jdlh | Talk 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as a non-American I find this section rather informative regarding a well known American commentator who has no impact on any country outside of his own. This is his work and reputation and it deserves to have it's own place. When I click on a David Bowie album from his article I get to see what songs are on it. I like to think this section reflects that. In a sense.
- Delete: I have been editing this article heavily because I realize that it will most likely survive the move for deletion. However, I do not believe this article is appropriate for wikipedia. Most of the incidents mentioned here are not notable, and justice can be done to them using a few sentences in the O'Reilly article itself. Stanley011 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Do we really need to list every single controversy? He's a controversial guy... list a few and be done with it. --Mrmiscellanious 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable subject and is of importance. Needs work to remove POV but has the potential to be a decent article.--Auger Martel 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep too big for the main artice. Let that tell you all you need to know about the guy :P -Mask 16:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Let this seed grow. Good article particularly in light of the numerous controversies. Netscott 17:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a needed page because Bill O'Reilly invites controversy whether it be inaccuracies or name-calling.
- 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extate
Freshly founded company, non-notable. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Haakon 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Pretty average looking business. BlueValour 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:CORP. Kimchi.sg 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. DarthVader 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - it is an advertisment and not encyclopedic. Ali0th 07:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete - Deemed notable by Real Estate Enthusiast , Point2 Agent, Rainy City Guide, NuBricks 11:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.169.51.179 (talk • contribs)
- Note: User's first edit. Haakon 10:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete - An article on a similar company exists - 'RightMove' without issues. Don't discriminate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.177.184 (talk • contribs)
- User's only edits are to this AfD or the article. He has repeatedly tried to blank this AfD and remove the AfD tag from the article. Kimchi.sg 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Nice try 86.144.177.184 but no candy. RightMove is listed on the LSE and therefore passes WP notability. Your company is not and therefore does not. --BlueValour 17:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. So much for encouraging startups! The fact is that RightMove is a regular portal and Extate has real unique search engine technology. Who is to judge that users will value a company more because its listed on a stock exchange? They couldn't care less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.89.192 (talk • contribs)
-
-
- Comment. This is an encyclopaedia not an aid to startups. Please read WP:CORP. BlueValour 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- DELETE Antmoney85 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - --Nobunaga24 00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination and force author to read WP:NOT a thousand times. Equendil Talk 01:07, 15 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jeffrey Pike
The book referenced does exist but I still think this is a complete hoax. We need to use the Under Slash to cut this bollocks out of Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete His mercenary descendents are still offering fee-based managed accounts for high net-worth individuals - must be genetic! Dlyons493 Talk 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Google him and King Harthacanute together brings 0 hits [36] Note: the creator also wrote Wang Tian Yi the Great, now at AfD. Kimchi.sg 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unless some kind of verification turns up. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Good catch. When I put the wikify tag on the article, I had doubt as to its veracity. ---Charles 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can I remake this as, The Legend of ... etc. etc. etc. The same is for Wang Tian Yi the Great. They could be real, but I've heard them as legends from old people cuz I am always around old people. If legends like King Arthur can be on Wikipedia, why can't lesser known ones be on wikipedia?
- Comment Of course you can remake it as The Legend of Jeffrey Pike, referencing its verifiable sources. It's really most unkind of RHaworth to call it bollocks. In fact, why don't you just add verifiable sources to this article and we'll all change our votes. Dlyons493 Talk
Wat do you mean by verifiable sources? Like would my grandma and some old guy at a retirement home be verifable? or do u mean a website and a book? btw i didn't make these articles, my cousin who had my password did, but i know they're somewhat not fake. he definately just stole the book things as sources. If you go to Mubote's contributions or something, you'll see that there are good articles and bad ones. I made the good ones with sources and stuff. so do i just have to find a website and/or book?
- Yes, those would help. (The book and/or website, not the other ones.) And please tell your cousin to get their own account (and change your password!) Grandmasterka 07:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- lol I changed password. What do you mean buy : The book and/or website, not the other ones?--Adam Wang 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I MADE: The legend of jeffrey pike . I hope it is satisfactory. If it isn't tell me what to do? I'm soooo confused. thanks.
- 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wang Tian Yi the Great
Hoax. References are vague. Comment on talk page suggests hoax. -- RHaworth 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete as hoax unless someone from Lishui or who has been to the place can verify that the statue of him exists. Kimchi.sg 19:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Changed to strong delete - both this article and Jeffrey Pike (also on AfD) are created by the same user. Kimchi.sg 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can verify the information. --Starionwolf 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless some type of verification turns up. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I "made" this article, though it was somebody else who stole my article.I'm from Lishui, and there is a statue that is in a crappy condition. I don't know who it is. But it think my cousin stole my account during March Break. Oh yea Change. It may be a legend, not fact. My grandma told me this story. Can I put this article as The Legend of Wang Tian Yi the Great, or The Legend of ... because they're just stories. If you have Cinderella, which isn't fact, couldn't you have other legends/stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUBOTE (talk • contribs)
- Delete, "Wang Tian Yi the Great was a Chinese hero who is widely forgotten throughout China." says it all. Plus the admission of OR (or, well, GR, grandma's research). —Cuiviénen 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 03:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Original research. The ability of it to be verified is pretty remote as well.--Auger Martel 12:13, 17 June 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. Petros471 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD
I'm not sure that this is an encyclopedic article. Essentially, this article is a listing of one person's opinion of who the top 1000 scientists of all time are. The fact that this person also wrote a book on the subject changes nothing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The book itself seems borderline notable ... there are few, if any google hits outside of Wikipedia and book resellers. Even so, if this were an actual article about the book, that would be one thing, but this "article" is just a list of scientists. It would be like changing Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition to just be a listing of articles contained in the encyclopedia. (By the way, before citing copyvio as a reason to delete, please see the talk page - apparantly, the author has given his permission for the article, so that would not seem to be an issue.) BigDT 19:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- Just to clarify, this isn't just one person's opinion. It was obtained by "polling 80 universities worldwide". -- MisterHand 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok ... it's "one person's opinion that he formulated after polling a bunch of people" BigDT 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, pointless huge list of scientists, and not even in order of supposed importance. Sandstein 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't this Copyvio? It's certainly beyond fair use. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please see the talk page - the author appears to have given his permission for it. BigDT 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I saw it. The other problem is that it is essentially a "closed list": No editable content. Or could I add Werner Heisenberg as proposed on the talk page? In other words, do we defer authorship? ~ trialsanderrors 04:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't defending the article - just pointing out that copyvio does not appear to be an issue. I 100% agree with you that this is not an encyclopedic article. BigDT 04:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I saw it. The other problem is that it is essentially a "closed list": No editable content. Or could I add Werner Heisenberg as proposed on the talk page? In other words, do we defer authorship? ~ trialsanderrors 04:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please see the talk page - the author appears to have given his permission for it. BigDT 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. If it's not wikieditable, it's not wikipedic. ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- KeepAny list like this is bound to evoke some controversy.But all in all I feel this is a worthy effort whereby one can come across names of great scientists.As the talk page indicates even the Nobel list can evoke controversy.And this is not a single person's opinion and appears to have been given a seal of approval by the the President of the British Soceity for History of Science who certainly would be in a position to know the worth.And how on earth can one assess supposed importance?The list essentially is about great scientists who have been granted the seal of approval by their successoors and/or peers(Vr 06:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
- I'm just wondering why no-one found it worthwhile to write an entry about the author. Also comparisons to Nobel lists fall flat for too mnay reasons to list. PS At the minimum the title should be changed to make clerar this is not a WP-endorsed list. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's the title of the book, and its explicitly said so in the first sentence of the article. It doesn't violate any WP naming standards. For example, the article The Greatest Show on Earth isn't WP-endorsed either, and that title remains. If the article is kept, the name should remain as well. -- MisterHand 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons given by Vr. Also the large number of redlinks is a usefull reminder of subjects for new articles. Anyone on this list should have a WP article. That would be about 110 new articles. --Bduke 07:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is the book itself notable? If not delete. Otherwise, re-write to be about the book. Ace of Sevens 12:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete So far as I can tell the book isn't notable. ScottW 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have gone through the article carefully and consulted several colleagues at the JNU,Delhi where I am a research fellow.I think I shall be prepared to reconsider my vote if I could be convinced that artcle cannot be considered encyclopedic.Surely in a biographical encyclopedia we should expect material of this nature.In the JNU library,there are three books in the reference section on scientists.The first of course is the magnum opus which goes into 8 volumes and contains 8000 names.The second is the biographical encyclopedia produced by Oxford University Press which is updated every year and this book is the most recent addition.It was reviewed in September 2005 by Indian National Science Academy in favourable terms.
I think this book competes with the Oxford Press book.The difference here is that the latter is compiled by an editorial board of five while this is a result of feedback from 80 universities worldwide.Moreover the Oxford book contains about 3000 names.And the book has been accepted as an encyclopedia in the two reviews I came across.That is what I suspect prompted Gene Nygard to create this article.
As far as it being a closed list goes,I think any list which is the outcome of research is bound to be closed-i.e. membership of the Royal Society of London and National Academy of Sciences.As far as I know,this is the first effort to involve international dimension.And while the omissions are noteworthy,I came across some very interesting names which I have not come across in any other book eg.David Alter who does not find a place in either the 8 volumes or the Oxford book.After getting to know about him,I am convinced that his contribution was in no way less noteworthy than Heisenberg.
And surely a book that finds a place in the JNULibrary,Royal Society and Royal Institution Libraries(as it appears on the talk page)and Stanford Library at least has some merit.(Delhite 06:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC))
- Your argument equally supports rewriting it into an article about the book without the list being included in the article. Ths list may belong in other wikis like Wikibooks or Wikisource 131.107.0.73 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Golfcam 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would be more than interested to be advised about the norms.I have a feeling that any article which provides menaningful information of sufficient interest to a sizable number should merit inclusion.The criticism that it does not have some familiar names is balanced by the fact that some very notable names have been thrown up which do not strike the air of familiarity eg.David Alter about whom I knew nothing until I perused through the article and made enquiries.And the compairision with the Nobel List I think is not a true comparision.As the talk page would suggest,even the Nobel List omits worthies like Edison and Tesla.
The relevant question should be how does a lay person or a student of science get to know which scientist,both past and present,is highly regarded by his peers.Nobel Prizes came into being only in 1901 and one can legitimately raise seroius questions about them being all inclusive(Mathematics has been excluded)and credible when Tesla and Edison have been omitted.Membership of AAAS nad NAS suffer from same disabilities as does the Fellowship of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Society of London.One does have to rely on the biographical encyclopedias available-and in my view,this effort is certainly noteworthy.I do not agree with moving the list elsewhere and keep the bit about teh book-people are bound to be curious about the names(Delhite 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
- Keep The people who are considered the most notable in the field by those who are in that field is, of course, sufficiently important. An article about this book, listing the people who appear, is educational, important, and of interest to anyone who loves science. Qaz 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article is a list of scientists, is about the book (and hence the title of the book is title of the article, and like many lists includes redlinks suggesting articles to be created. Note that I did not create this article, as stated above. I have edited many of the links to make them work for existing articles. Gene Nygaard 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but for goodness sakes delete the ridiculous list. Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links. The article is notable as a published work of sufficient importance, but the entire list is not. Batmanand | Talk 15:24, 19 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] G'Leone
Asserts importance, but it is clearly a vanity page (the author even signed their name). Could not verify notability in google Irongargoyle 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete cleary a vanity page, non-notable person. -- DrunkenSmurf 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete smells of a hoax. Google for G'Leone rocawear -wikipedia [37] and "G'Leone" -Wikipedia "sean john" [38] both bring 0 Google hits (no relevant hits for both when you replace G'Leone with Greg Johnson). Kimchi.sg 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity. Eddie.willers 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity/advertising. - Frekja 18:40, 16 June 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. Petros471 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bearwood Primary School
Non-notable. Primary school with no outstanding feature. BlueValour 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think such a school needs an article on Wikipedia. --Pilot|guy (roger that) 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep schools are notable Computerjoe's talk 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Concensus that High schools are notable but primary schools are not-notable unless outstanding feature. BlueValour 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- That is simply untrue. The majority of nominated primary schools are kept, as it looks like those nominated today will be. CalJW 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this school seems to have no notable features. Worse still, everything is unsourced. Kimchi.sg 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Not inherently notable. Wickethewok 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for failing to establish notability wrt Wiki standards. Eddie.willers 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Trebor 21:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable brat factory. Sandstein 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Nice start to the article. Can only get better over time. --JJay 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all primary schools - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nothing spesial about this school. -- Eivindt@c 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sandstein - LOL! —Khoikhoi 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. ALKIVAR™ 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep please it is notable and the article will get better its a wiki Yuckfoo 22:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable school. CalJW 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Real school. Golfcam 17:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep, most schools are notable. bbx 06:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Bahn Mi.--Auger Martel 12:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Split or Delete The article (which is only a stub) appears to be about two different primary schools, which must be 100 miles apart. One (Wokingham) cites a basic school website. The other has no citation, but I would guess that a populous area such as Bearwood, West Midlands will have a primary school. We should hope that some one will improve them. Peterkingiron 23:03, 17 June 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 13:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New York Renaissance Faire
Delete. Non-notable event. Association with Jon Lovitz and David Brimmer (who?) is not verified by anything I can find. ... discospinster talk 23:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep & Clean Up Added sources: In process of confirming Lovitz reference. -Rensource —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.117.125 (talk • contribs)
- Keep & Expand I just started the article so that those with a greater knowledge of the rich history of the NYRF might expand on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grepowell (talk • contribs)
Relisted for clearer consensus Computerjoe's talk 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete since the day after this AfD nomination, not even the article creator has returned to edit this article - so much for expansion. No independent coverage of this event as far as I can tell. Kimchi.sg 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Keep, expand per TruthbringerToronto - D'oh! I was so sleepy I missed the sources section. Apologies. *reminds self never again to comment in AfDs at 4 in the morning* Kimchi.sg 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)- Keep' Kimchi.sg, I am confused by what you mean by "independent coverage". Did you see the list of sources? Grepowell
Delete I must've missed Kimchi.sg's comments somehow.Keep & Clean Up per TruthbringerToronto --Starionwolf 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)- Keep. If the New York Times writes about this event, then it's notable. See the list of references. TruthbringerToronto 00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep is notable, and deserves to stay. Trm3 11:46, 14 June 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. Petros471 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carmyle Primary School
Non-notable. Primary school with no outstanding features. Claim to fame as open plan spurious - many schools are. BlueValour 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete yet another totally unsourced primary school article. Kimchi.sg 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As non-notable primary school. Wickethewok 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for failure to establish any kind of premise that begins to hint at the merest possibility of speculative notability. Eddie.willers 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Trebor 21:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete many new schools use open-plan design, non-notable. --Eivindt@c 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nom. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have posted a warning to 88.107.90.12 for illegally deleting this AfD. --BlueValour 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable school. CalJW 05:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Is no different from any of the other billion schools in the world. Only thing remotely interesting about it is the burning of the previous building, but that isn't expanded upon. Only other piece of encyclopedic info is the headmistress' name. P.S. surely that picture does not illustrate the school. Isn't it breaking the children's privacy to post this without their consent? And why Primary 7 and not 6, 5 or 4? - Mgm|(talk) 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Why is there only one other keep vote? I think some might have been deleted. Golfcam 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment No keep votes have been deleted. However, a Keep supporter blanked this page. Following the failure of WP:SCHOOL there needs to be something notable about a school to keep it - please identify what that is. BlueValour 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I notice that the picture is separately being considered for deletion. What is special here?TerriersFan 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. For standard reasons. Vegaswikian 22:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Strong precedent to include schools. Verifiable and subject of importance.--Auger Martel 12:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Good start to the article + BBC news link. --JJay 18:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was del `'mikka (t) 01:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Picaroni
2 years old and still not notable. Not in top 100,000 pages [39], numerous google hits, however its impossible to tell how many actually relate to this website. Of note, the first 3 relate to this website on the first page of results. One is a forum message about it closing down for a bit, the other is this article [40] There are 2 more hits further down, only pages with links to images hosted there. This is also a last name and obviously tainting the results. The 2nd page has only 3 results, the third page only a single result. "picaroni.com" only gives 41 results [41] Crossmr 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Picaroni lost its hosting service on August 26, 2005 due to excessive bandwidth usage [42], along with a majority of the pictures previously uploaded. The service was not restored until the May 23, 2006, and has not yet regained the Google-based notability it maintained before August 26, 2005. Approximately 11,400 web pages still mention, or link to Picaroni.com. [43] Zelaron 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment if and when it regains its alleged notability the page can be recreated. We don't create or keep articles on a subject if the notability cannot be established at the time of debate. Also recheck your google link. There are only 46 unique hits, thats why it peters out at page 6. --Crossmr 22:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, other similar sites such as Skyfolder and Fotki have their own articles, yet they are not in the top 100,000 Alexa pages either. Aston 22:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Users only two edits are on this AFD, very likely sock.--Andeh 20:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
comment its probably worth noting that the user Aston is brand new and their sole contributions are to this page[45]. --Crossmr 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,--Crossmr 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Nowhere near as popular as similar products. Wickethewok 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was del `'mikka (t) 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Galaxybay
site seems to have had a couple of days of notability in April [46] Currently sits ranked 439,551 [47]. Poor google showing [48] over half the results are non-english. Otherwise completely non-notable. Crossmr 00:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Flickr is a notable site but this one does not pass WP:WEB - Peripitus (Talk) 01:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,--Crossmr 19:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like an ad. Vulcher 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - empty, blatant spam. - Mike Rosoft 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] JEspo's World
Advertisement for non-notable website, does not satisfy WP:WEB. Deprodded. Accurizer 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete if possible, blatant advertisement. Kimchi.sg 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment added speedy tag, should be gone soon.--Andeh 20:14, 12 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nubis, The Family Cat... Chaa!
Umm yeah... There are a few google hits for this, and it's been quite a while since I've done scouting and all, but do we really need this? I also think there could be copyright concerns in posting the entire lyrics to the song. Irongargoyle 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not really encyclopedia material. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not appropriate for an encyclopædia. --Starionwolf 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for being unencylopaedic and a strong candidate for inclusion in WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE
Perhaps it has been awhile since you were in Scouts! Your decision of "whether we need this" is based on your self admitted and limited exposure to what is going on in Scouting today.
Our boys are in it right now and are the ones who posted this as part of thier communications and Citizenship merit badges. We posted the lyrics to the song ourselves and don't mind at all if folks borrow, edit, or modify thier own versions of it in any way.
If the lyrics are the only thing keeping it from being accepted then we will just link them and have them removed.
The fact that you did find some google hits on this shows at least that it does deserve to exist
Wikipedia is a modern online encyclopedia and therefore by its very nature should live up to its true nature and include these type of pop-culture references, which under the Scouting world this classifies.
Keep an open mind and allow these boys to establish their home on Wikipedia and take part in this online experience. People are shut down far too quickly for creative thought these days and this is one of those times to expand the horizons and embrace the purpose for which this was created.
There is a Wikipedia reference on how to do the "Macarena Dance" and this is no different, it just applies to a Scout culture and not a club culture. Remove this page and then you must remove the Macarena one as well and the hundreds of other just like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.215.5 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Delete. non-encyclopedic nn song that, as it appears from the article, is relevant to only one nn troop.Agent 86 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: Your boys are to be commended for participating in scouting. I think it is something that many more young people should be involved in. Unfortunately, due to our guidelines and policies we can't include the troop song here, however I think it would be appropriately placed at Wikisource. --Hetar 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post songs you made up in Boy Scouts, specifically when said song only applies to one Troop of however-many kids in one town. I was about to note that websites like Tripod offer free web-hosting packages...but it appears I'd be preaching to the choir. If the boys would like to enhance the Wikipedia to earn merit badges, then they can collaborate on working on articles about subjects that are of note to a wide audience. We have a Wikipedia project dedicated to Scouting which they can participate in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and if you wouldn't find a topic in some sort of a national or international print encyclopedia (general or specialized), then it shouldn't be here.--FuriousFreddy 02:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic.--Auger Martel 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me - nothing but links elsewhere (CSD A3). Proto||type 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of podcast directories
WP:NOT an Internet directory. Wikipedia is not for "mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Delete. Tijuana BrassE@ 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As a giant link collection. Wickethewok 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per reasons above. Eddie.willers 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Linkapalooza. --Shizane 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Linkspam. Nothing useful. --timecop 00:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just trying to get a higher page rank --凸 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete linkspam. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 13 June 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 Deleted and protected from recreation. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] P-Unit
No vote yet Delete and Protect. Here we go: this was prodded and deleted in March. Then it was recreated, and sent to AfD, ostensibly because WP:CSD G4 requires that it go to AfD, since recreation after prod is considered an after-the-fact disputed deletion. However, the AfD was speedily interrupted for reasons of repost and A1/A3. It was recreated again and deleted under G4. It was recreated a fourth time and G4 was declined by an alert sysop, because consensus was never reached. So, please figure out if thing is notable or not and let's finally have consensus. I'll vote later based on what people dig up. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - No proof that it meets any sort of WP standards. Wickethewok 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - None-too-original student joke. Too many of them here already. Tevildo 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fake fake fake NawlinWiki 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Under da Maple Tree (April 1, 2003, Henderson Records) #1 (Debut) US 10x Platinum -- 10x Platinum Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Wickethewok.--Auger Martel 12:18, 17 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fighting Spirit (Power Rangers episode)
Fancruft, there is already a list of episodes in Power Rangers. We don't need a seperate listing for each one Irongargoyle 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, although there are other TV series that have individual episode articles. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are about ten single episode entries for this show. There is more information coming.
- Keep This is one of the more important episodes in the series. I happened to be making an article for it as the original was made. Hopefully the information I've added is adequate. BobbyAFC 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I wouldn't agree with a big synopsis for every episode ever in the franchise, but have no problems with important episodes or endings. Other TV series have this, you'd just need consideration for what's considered notable. Voice of Treason 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Just because it's power rangers and not the simpsons doesn't mean pages for episodes aren't allowed.--Andeh 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with BobbyAFC; this is one of the most important episodes of the Power Rangers Universe. Keep "Fighting Spirit" alive! -- Sonic_Shadow 22:14 June 12th, 2006
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per discussions above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. 30+ minute episode in notable series = automatic keep, per numerous precedents. I can't speak for the episode's influence beyond that, but every episode in the Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy (to name ones I'm familiar with) and many others has its own page. Grandmasterka 07:33, 14 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ArchiveGrid
Non-notable. Advertisement. BlueValour 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to be a reasonably significant research database endeavour with good Google coverage. Per its website, "ArchiveGrid is a service of RLG, a not-for-profit membership organization of over 150 universities, national libraries, archives, historical societies, and other institutions with remarkable collections for research and learning." Good enough for me. Sandstein 21:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems notable. Has web coverage outside of blog-spams and press-releases. Artw 23:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems fine. — 199 19:42, 15 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tompkinball
No evidence of notabliliy, just some random drinking game that someone thought up. I think there are a lot of those... and this seems suspiciously like a hoax as well. Irongargoyle 20:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Adambiswanger1 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No hits at all in Google. BuckRose 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per reason of Adambiswanger1. Eddie.willers 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Zero Google hits equals non-notability. MysteryDog 16:44, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SuperViva Life Lists
spam Bachrach44 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 43 things knock-off only not nearly as notable: [49] --Crossmr 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete spam. BlueValour 21:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advert for a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB, Alexa rank 799,258, no claims or indications of particular notability. Sandstein 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per others. Hbackman 04:01, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Armed & Dangerous (comic)
No details, no claim of notability (possible vanity?), no links in or out except the stub tag and a disambig SoM 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{db-empty}}, so tagged (and no, it never had substantial content). Sandstein 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Not even a stub. If the person wants it to remain, she'll need to add a few more sentences that will make it stub-worthy. Interlingua 00:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Interlingua. —Khoikhoi 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Petros471 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Newsvine
Non-notable website Artw 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for failure to establish notability and advertising. Eddie.willers 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BlueValour 20:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
and heavy cleanup.Has an Alexa rank around 4'000 and press coverage (e.g. by the WSJ). Sandstein 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I see no advertising here. There are no problems with this article. Sandstein 21:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The only notability it now has is that which it shares as a member of a more general category. It has none itself and functions as an add now. The info is appropriate for newspaper but not for an encyclopedia. Interlingua 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then the info should be fixed. That's not a reason to delete a page, that's a reason to mark it for cleanup. -- TheTrueSora 15:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not our best article, but I don't see any advertising. As mentioned by Sandstein, it's a highly-trafficked site. Sean Hayford O'Leary 08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see any advertising and for such a new site it's hard to develop much further with history etc. Lee 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason we have Digg and Slashdot. Look at its Alexa rating. -- TheTrueSora 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. For me, just scrapes in per WP:WEB. Batmanand | Talk 15:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirected to Sahaba. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Radi-Allah-u 'anhu
Arabic-English dictionary definition. Not encyclopaedic. BlueValour 20:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete andRedirect. I have merged its one line into Sahaba. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: That should be better put as "redirect", sans delete - to preserve the history of the redirect. Kimchi.sg 20:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect, obviously. Sandstein 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect. If the author expands this considerably with NPOV, non-original work, it might be a stand-alone stub, but right now its best place is in Sahaba. I'd encourage the author, in the meantime, to find other appropriate epithets that could be added to this article. The information is important, it's just that it shouldn't be a stand-alone.Interlingua 00:07, 13 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kelly Mink
I'm a bit unclear on what to do with this. The page was speedy deleted, but I did a google search and there is some evidence that she has notability. The question is if it goes above and beyond a normal professor Irongargoyle 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{db-repost}}, so tagged. On the merits, no indication of meeting WP:BIO or WP:PROFTEST, no sources, Google results are less than convincing. Sandstein 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the speedy tag; while it is a repost, the question of notability raised above suggests that this AfD should be allowed to play out. Tijuana BrassE@ 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the notability. Google brings up fewer than 500 hits for every reference to "Kelly Mink", including mink farms and other people with the same name. '"Kelly Mink" Milwaukee' only comes up with 24 hits. Doesn't seem notable to me. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A vote for Keep has been posted on Talk:Kelly_Mink by an anonymous user. I'm not sure if it should be given much weight, but it looks more like a new user than a sockpuppet (which would probably show up here). Irongargoyle 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. To be kept, the author would need to show a history of publication or other notability greater than the average university professor. Until such a time, this information should either be deleted or incorporated into a more general article. The author might find a place for this artist on the article for guerilla art. But it's still rather thin. Interlingua 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Interlingua. —Khoikhoi 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- strong delete not notable, one weak source from 1998?. Trm3 11:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I get 3 google hits on his name plus his email, and I see no indication of what he is a professor of. JeffBurdges 11:22, 15 June 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Epiphanny Prince
Delete. I question this person's notability. HS sport scores are frequently lopsided when opposing teams suck. Is it that unique that we should have an article here, ESPN article notwithstanding? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The ONLY notability this person achieved is because her coach was an incredibly poor sportsman. If she lights it up at Rutgers, then she deserves an article. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable college athlete, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Sounds likes a good player but not notable. Interlingua talk 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Isn't someone who hold a national athletic record noteworthy? I would say so.--Kev62nesl 05:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for sure, it don't belong so just delete it, it's a load of junk and it don't deserve to be on the site, just press the delete key —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.124.40.26 (talk • contribs) .
- COMMENT This is noteable. She set the record for most points in a game. There are thousands of hits on google for her. How can we claim she is not notable?--Kev62nesl 08:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- 334 [50] - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but edit Considering that she broke a national record set 24 years ago by Cheryl Miller (who is widely considered one of the best female players ever), this is a noteworthy entry. The article should include criticism concerning the ethics of of this kind of team-assisted record-breaking and running up the score. Prince's legal issues are not noteworthy and should be removed. --Adversive 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- First edit: contribs - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Petros471 20:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Computer user satisfaction
OR, non-notable, needs major editing. See Talk:Computer user satisfaction for more detailed arguments. Tevildo 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Thinking about it, I might as well put the detailed argument here instead.
- It's pushing the boundary of WP:OR. Specifically: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor." The editor, admittedly, only advances his thesis indirectly, and that thesis might be summarised as "existing metrics of 'computer user satisfaction' are inadequate", but I still feel this is getting closer to the OR line than we should.
- As the article stands, it's of very marginal interest - it just discusses various scholarly metrics for 'user satisfaction', without addressing the substance of those metrics.
- No other articles link to it, and it's not, at present, categorized.
- It needs a great deal of work to bring it in line with WP:1SP. In particular, it contains large numbers of weasel words - "according to several scholars", "some scholars suggest", etc., and generally has the tone of an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. This, admittedly, is something that could be fixed by radical editing, but I personally do not believe that it's worth it. See 2 above.
Tevildo 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. OK, it's not among Wikipedia's best articles on many counts, but it's not OR and it's obviously a genuine research subject, and thus encyclopedic. No other objections have been raised that are within AfD's ambit; all other problems must be addressed by cleanup work. Sandstein 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and arguments. --Crossmr 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. It's hard to read, sounds like an article that summarizes (so it isn't OR) rather than a good encyclopedia entry. But as per Sandstein, it's an important topic but, as per Tevildo, there's a lot wrong with it: too much detail and indirectness, too little highlighting of the substance. But I still think it should stand, preferably to be pared down and worked on. Interlingua talk 00:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, reads like an essay and OR. Kimchi.sg 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Better-referenced than 99.99% of our articles. I agree it needs clarification and general cleanup though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic topic. — 199 19:44, 15 June 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 Deleted as per WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A. M. Shinas
Vanity page, non-notable academic. cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity, no indication of meeting WP:BIO or WP:PROFTEST. Sandstein 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Also unsourced POV. BlueValour 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I thought the family name looked familiar. There's been repeated efforts to put the whole family here. See also the following AfD's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Areepattamannil, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Areepattamannil Family. - Fan1967 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No notability (yet), very POV, too much of a vanity site. If this had real merit, a list of non-trivial publications would have followed these sentences: "Shinas loves to write. And write he does, in a way that many don't. " They didn't and that makes me think there is in fact nothing of substance. Please, let him write AND publish, some interesting articles on medicine, Malayalam and Armenia, then in a year or two resubmit with references. Interlingua talk 00:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - doesn't meet professor test. Notability insufficient for encyclopedia entry. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I come from that part of the world and afaik, he is not at all famous or notable. Tintin (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirected to Counter-Strike. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pubnoob
This article is about a newly coined phrase that has yet to gain widespread public recognition. Or NNneo in Wiki-talk RicDod 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, then redirect to Counter-Strike like Pubnub does already. No sources, and of course an utterly crufty bit of gaming trivia. Sandstein 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Personal essay, CS trivia slang dictdef. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Local slang, product release info, cliquish info. If in the future, there are non-trivial external references such info might be acceptable as part of a bigger article. But that's the future. Now, it's a delete. Interlingua talk 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 June 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. — TheKMantalk 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broadbandreports
Not my nomination - User:Locust43 added an AFD tag but neglected to create this listing. Rhobite 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly a notable web site - Alexa rank of 1202, over 1 million registered users, and it has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles. See [51]. Locust43 appears to have some sort of grudge against the site. Rhobite 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above, dubious nomination. Sandstein 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Rhobite. Locust43 seems to be having a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works, based upon my experiences with him the past few days; this feels like a bad faith nom to me. Tijuana BrassE@ 21:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, perhaps speedily given nature of nomination. (Note that the tag was previously placed and removed by Locust43.) Clearly one of the relatively few notable websites out there. -Splash - tk 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Although closely tied with one company, it's more than an ad or vanity. Well-written and formatted about a large, notable site. It's also been the source of lots of work for a year. Interlingua talk 00:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above. 199 19:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above. False nomination from someone with an apparent agenda. Obliter 09:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Petros471 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Set Abominae
"Character" that appears only on three album covers from a minor band - NN NawlinWiki 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with the Merge comments below -- will be glad to merge the articles when this debate is closed. NawlinWiki 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Jon also is going to write a graphic novel about Set Abominae." This is the only thing I can see possibly asserting legitimate notability, but it's a violation of WP:NOT (crystal ball). Delete. Aplomado talk 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, crystalblah. Sandstein 21:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Iced Earth. Not enough information for its own article, but it is information nonetheless. JoaoRicardotalk 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. It might deserve its own article if/when the graphic novel 1) is written and 2) is published and 3) attracts non-trivial attention. Interlingua talk 00:42, 13 June 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, nominator has withdrawn and there have been no delete votes thus far. In an editorial decision, I will also move the article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beauty and the Beast (song from the 1991 film)
Academy award winning song on its own page. No one has expanded the article in months. I merged most of the useful information into Beauty_and_the_Beast_(1991_film)#Songs I'm placing the article in AFD instead of prod to see what other editors think should be done. --Starionwolf 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's definitely a fairly significant song, and the info on the page is useful and not found in the main article. Aplomado talk 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Being an Academy Award winner, I'd consider it notable enough to have its own article (we even categorize the things). The title's way unwieldy, but I think it passes muster. Papacha 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep As Papacha said, it's an Academy Award winner. I think that makes it notable enough to keep. RedRollerskate 23:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's got enough notability and length to stay as a stand-alone even if no one has expanded it in months. It's got much more info than most stubs and is better written. Interlingua talk 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable enough for its own article, and even if it's been merged, the result would be a redirect; it can't be deleted. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — winning the Oscar makes it notable enough for its own article. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). The information included is almost completely irrelevant; it's a catalog list of on what album we can buy a copy of the song. And do we really need to know it appears in Kingdom Hearts??? If it's decided that it must be kept (it is an important subject), needs to be completely rewritten (with substance) and moved to a better namespace, like Beauty and the Beast (1991 song). --FuriousFreddy 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Beauty and the Beast (1991 song) per ERcheck and FuriousFreddy. Kimchi.sg 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename, there's absolutely no reason for an awar-winning song to not have its own article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Award-winning song. --Andromeda 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Beauty and the Beast (1991 song) per ERcheck, FuriousFreddy and badlydrawnjeff. It has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award. Err, I goofed on the AFD. Sorry. And thank you for not biting a newbie. Shame on me - I should've known better. :) --Starionwolf 02:25, 14 June 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 non-notable by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Kimchi.sg 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nordwave
Seems to fail WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 1,949,398, in existence since November, 2005. Google hits seem mixed with a musical site, unless they are the same. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a gross failure of WP:WEB. I don't thinkt his website has "exploded" into anything. --Hetar 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, created by User:Nordwave after he tried to add this site to the 'external links' section of several articles and was rebuffed. That alone is not enough to delete, but as Zoe pointed out, the Alexa rank is very low, and at least 75% of the 12K Google hits for "nordwave" appear to be for a Swiss house band based on 9K hits for "+nordwave sirup" (Sirup is the band's record label). -Big Smooth 21:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)I
If somebosy else would like to write a review for Nordwave that would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordwave (talk • contribs)
- Delete. I tagged this as db-group about 45 minutes ago, but User:Nordwave removed the speedy notice, put the hangon tag on the page, put "This is an organization that winkepedia should list." on Talk:Nordwave, and just removed the hangon tag. All-in-all, a non-notable group, website, etc. —Whomp [T] [C] 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nonnotable, trying to bootstrap themselves with WP listing NawlinWiki 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Totally non-notable. If they get some external coverage, this info might merit being including in other nationalist or racist organizations, but as for now it fails even that test. Interlingua talk 00:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete As A7 non-notable.
- Added note: User:Nordwave just blanked this AfD. I wouldn't have known it were here if he hadn't done that. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:26, 13 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Leaving of Liverpool
- Song lyrics only. Please delete unless it can turn into an encyclopedia article. Georgia guy 21:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kalani [talk] 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs cleanup, as tagged, and sourcing but contains useful encyclopaedic information. BlueValour 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Someone has been working on this. There is quite a lot more than just lyrics now: info on significance, links to Bob Dylan. Interlingua talk 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep. One of the British Isles's more notable folk songs. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable folk song reworked by Bob Dylan. There was also an Australian television miniseries The Leaving of Liverpool that took its name from this folksong see [52]. Capitalistroadster 02:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Highly noteworthy folk song of deeply significant historical and cultural importance. Article however needs extending and expansion. Sjc 04:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep very well known song deserving of an article. I think an expand tag would have been more appropriate than AfD. Tyrenius 15:24, 14 June 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. Petros471 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Xtreme Hardcore Federation
An E-wrestling federation where people pretend to be wrestlers, simply none notable. Englishrose 21:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) color="black">Interlingua]] talk 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Hello, I'm the original author of the entry. Yes, it is E-wrestling, but as that article states, most last a few months at best. XHF has lasted five years. We've had over 400 members, and I was doing this article as a surprise to the people who frequent the website as I am one of the runners of it. My comp crashed when I had half the article done and was uninspired to re-write it for awhile afterward and just kept up the skeleton, and for that I'm sorry. But I have let people know it exists so we can get more information on it done quickly. While we may be in the E-wrestling genre, we are the largest E-fed on the internet, and for us to not be notable in said genre would be like saying that D&D or Warhammer are not notable in the Table Top Roleplaying genre simply because they are a type of outlet for it. Thank you for your time. --hardcore247 09:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep In accordance with what the author stated, I would further that the info will very soon be updated. As for it being non notable, I would have to raise the argument in the same manner as the author. It is a significance amongst the E-Wrestling community, and therefore is notable within it own realm of information. If you allow the artical on E-Wrestling themselves, why not have a significant subject/example of one? If it would befit it better, perhaps add the XHF article as a reference of example to the E-Wrestling Atrical itself. I realize that in the end it is far from my decision, but these are my reasons for keeping it, and would like for them to be considered. FrankClassic 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep In my honest opinion, it actually helps the people that are searching up professional wrestling here because it serves a point that we are a strong community with a bunch of nice and really talented people that know the factor of what pro wrestling really is, that's one of the reasons why this E-wrestling stuff is around. Sure, it needs editing up big time like you said but once it's fully complete, you'll realize the value of it. Good day. Faded 13:01 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I concur with the people who say we must keep this entry. It will help people looking for a succesful and fun e-fed. We have articles on cartoons and other fictional things. This is basically a story. Do we delete entrys on The Catcher and The Rye? No. Albeit, the XHF isn't a book. But still, we shouldn't delete it as it would help certain people looking for certain things.
- Delete - Article is about a non-notable organization, was initially created by someone affiliated with it, and the majority of "Keep" votes here seems to be coming from people with an obvious interest in having the article stay. The article is, in my opinion, a vanity page. --Martey 10:53, 16 June 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. Petros471 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan (book)
Speedy DeleteToo short, no info, if it's going to get expanded, do so quickly, because a thtis point it is a waste of space.--AeomMai 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep Another Islam related targetted by Qadianis for deletion. Siddiqui 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- This was a malformed request, so I am relisting it myself. Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep written by a notable author, should carry over to article. Yanksox (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Yanksox. --Coredesat 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Also note irony in the concept that "this article is a waste of space because it's too short." --Alex S 06:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep books by well-known people deserve an article. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi is an influential and well-known person. Article is stubby but otherwise fine. It has to start somewhere. It could be merged and redirected if the article can't stand on its own. I don't think deletion is warranted. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable book, notable author, clear NPOV article, Wikified already. Rather than being deleted, it should receive a recommendation. Interlingua talk 15:48, 19 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Underground Pro
- I see your points. We are getting a new site, and it will contain our E-Fed's info and history, thus this may seem quite useless. I'll delete it ASAP. I'm sorry for any trouble I have caused. EnglishRose, we are trying to be a different E-Fed from the millions of one month crappers. We've been running for a year and a half. EDIT: Um, can someone help me with this deleting thing. I'm trying to figure it out, however I'm just totally confused. CaMacKid 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Another none notable e-wrestling federation (where people write stories pretending to be wrestlers). I'm amazed at how many are still out there. Delete. Englishrose 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. --Crossmr 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --blue520 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's a bunch of these. Voice of Treason 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Interlingua talk 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirected to John F. Kennedy assassination. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] November 22, 1963
Covered by John F. Kennedy and related articles - we don't need articles for every important date in history NawlinWiki 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per NawlinWiki. Events of this day are covered in-depth in articles the titles of which will be familiar to researchers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to John F. Kennedy assassination. BoojiBoy 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. JoaoRicardotalk 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no redirect. Is anyone really going to search "November 22, 1963" to find information about the Kennedy assassination? Aplomado talk 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe. Anyway, "redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around." JoaoRicardotalk 01:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There is interesting info here (notability) but it is either OR, POV (gushing), or misplaced (it should be included in JFK). It seems heartfelt, but that's blogworthy not Wikiworthy. Interlingua talk 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to John F. Kennedy assassination. Redirects are cheap. BryanG(talk) 04:48, 13 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EWA: Extreme Wrestling Association
Another one of those none notable e-feds where people pretend to be wrestlers. Englishrose 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--blue520 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Vanity or non-notable. Interlingua talk 00:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:00, 13 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United States Wrestling Federation
Another none notable e-wrestling federation (where people write stories pretending to be wrestlers). There's more of these, I thought I'd eliminated them all. Delete. Englishrose 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't even find their website. JoaoRicardotalk 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --blue520 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, certainly not notable.--Andeh 23:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 13 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] William Findlater
Non-notable local (as opposed to national) politician with no specified achievements. BlueValour 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's part of political history and this seems to be a rather exhaustive compilation which would be incomplete without him Category:Manitoba_MLAs. I've more than once followed a list backwards of political people just see whats there. --Crossmr 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If he's a real person, there's no reason to delete. JoaoRicardotalk 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. He's not a local (ie. municipal) politician, he's a provincial politician. There's an established practice of keeping pages like this. CJCurrie 23:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per other users -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Passes WP:BIO easily. BoojiBoy 00:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I was going to say delete until I read the other comments and came to a better understanding of Wiki policy. The article, however, really needs some info on notabality. Right now there's only the fact of serving and nothing on acts of signficance, even at a provincial level. Interlingua talk 00:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm affraid I disagree with you here. If someone wins an election for a legislative body of a province/state/department/etc, we should have an article for that person, even if he/she did nothing outstanding in office, because there's still a good chance people will look up information about him/her. JoaoRicardotalk 01:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per CJCurrie. Ardenn 02:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - elected provincial legislator. Homey 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BIO and precedent. --Rob 04:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- While policy as written is admittedly a bit ambiguous on the subject, WP convention has clearly determined that people duly elected to the legislature of a state or province are sufficiently notable to be kept. So, yep, keep it. Bearcat 08:59, 17 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bioregional revolution
Delete - No notability asserted. Appears to be a single non-notable Geocities website, almost no Google references aside from Wikipedia to "Bioregional Revolutionary Movement". Article consists almost entirely of references to other ideas, people and organizations, with no indication of any notable activity by the "group" in question. David Oberst 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Should the consensus be "delete", there are a number of associated redirect pages (see here) which hopefully would be eligible for some variety of speedy deletion at the same time. David Oberst 23:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Looks a bit nutty, and not very notable. Artw 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No notability. It looks nutty as per Artw, but I wouldn't vote for delete just on that. It's, so far, a non-notable bit of nuttiness with no evidence that it has a membership broader than the author or a significance beyond this Wiki entry. Interlingua talk 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 13 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Ellmore
non-notable politician, seems like vanity hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, recreate if he actually wins the Republican nomination for the seat NawlinWiki 23:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Nawlinwiki. Vanity until something notable happens. Interlingua talk 00:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- I wrote the article. He lost the election which was yesterday. 72.66.92.160 01:30, 15 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peace Burial At Sea
Contested prod, I do not believe that this band asserts enough notability to pass WP:MUSIC. Dspserpico 22:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. Google only turns CD directories and a Myspace account. These band articles are like locusts. Aplomado talk 00:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as I agree with the nom. A plague of locusts.. SubSeven 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Well-written for what it is, but it's a vanity and belongs on MySpace, not here. Interlingua talk 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I wrote this article some time ago, and it survived an existing call for deletion as the band were deemed to be noteworthy - they have played several national tours and also have a CD which is sold in independent record shops up and down the UK. They are well-known and respected on both the underground rock scene and in their native Newcastle, and have been reviewed in *Kerrang! magazine, a rather well-known publication. Google searches bring up much more than MySpace and CD listings if you look around, and they have been reviewed and have fans in countries as far afield as Russia - look *here. 09:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- comment Still not convinced of band's notability. If you can present me with verifiable information about their tour or find a copy of an article on kerrang on their website (I did a searcin on kerrang.com and found nothing). If such information is found, I may withdraw my nom, but as it stands I still doubt that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Dspserpico 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment Kerrang don't publish their reviews online - search for another more famous band on the site and all you'll find is news on them, no reviews. However, if you want proof that they've been reviewed in Kerrang, look *here (go to the bottom of the page), and *here, and if you go *here and go to the bottom of the page, you'll find their press pack for download which has their TWO entire Kerrang reviews in it (one album review, one live review). As for tours, they've been playing up and down the country for years now, and have toured with the very noteworthy 65daysofstatic, as mentioned *here. If you Google "Peace Burial At Sea live" you'll find details of some of the many gigs they've played. I could go on about this and produce further evidence of their "noteworthiness", but it's getting late and I want to go to bed. Basically, if Wikipedia's music pages are here only to document top 40 pop music and extremely well-known artists, then of course PBAS shouldn't be on here (and neither presumably should thousands of others). I personally think this would be a massive shame, because unlike other encyclopedias, Wikipedia has the opportunity to "pick up" things that more prestigious, academically researched tomes are simply unable to, and as such can provide a much better cross-section of popular culture. I'll leave it up to the rest of you to decide the fate of this article. 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable and fails to meet the necessary guidelines for WP:MUSIC.--Auger Martel 12:20, 17 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kim Buchanan
Adolphus79 has added {{db-attack}}, {{prod}}, and {{notability}} to this now, so let's have it out here. I assert that a person who's been found guilty of more than 100 child sex offences is notable. He's a former schoolteacher of mine so most of the article is from my memory and from reports in paper-based newspapers. The only online references I can find are [53], and [54], which prove merely that I didn't make this whole thing up. Richardcavell 23:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This should be verifiable and I recall this in the news, but it needs to be cleaned up (for example, the throwaway line right at the end about being sighted by IGS students). Jammo (SM247) 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but in definite need of clean-up. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but must be edited to meet NPOV & WP:V. blue520 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Sounds very notable. Interlingua talk 01:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - the reason it was tagged was because there isn't a single reference... at first it did appear as a db-attack, then when you complained about that, I added the prod and notability... please cite your sources, and I won't have anything left to complain about... - Adolphus79 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Nominator mentions "reports in paper-based newspapers," but there is no use of these newspapers as either citations or references. --D-Rock (talk) 03:15, 15 June 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 by User:IceKarma (CSD A8). Kimchi.sg 02:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Core muscle training
Delete, per original research and per WP:SPAM. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete as a {{hoax}}. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Daryn Sanders
- Delete. Hoax. IMdB has no "Daryn Sanders," and Google has five results, none of which are directors. IMDB has a "Daryl Sanders," but he does not appear to be a director. Per Fan1967's comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signs 2, author appears to be creating hoax articles with non-existent cast. Even were we to concede individual's existence, sole claim for notability would be direction of a speculative film — and WP:NOT a crystal ball — "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Google search on title appears to indicate that the film has been speculative since '99. — Mike • 23:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- "He will direct the 2007 horror film, I'll Never Forget What You Did Last Summer." Delete lame hoax. Aplomado talk 00:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- And for those who come by, the existence of that film is doubtful and in and of itself — see last sentence of above re: Google search. Film's article is up for its own AfD. — Mike • 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- strong delete not notable, crystal ball, one sentence is not even an article. Trm3 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, posted by a well-known film article vandal. BoojiBoy 03:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN, Crystal Ball, posted by vandal. Kershner 03:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete as a non-notable group. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dynasty Paintball
Non-notable paintball team Artw 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. BlueValour 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Uncertain about this, but discussion of Team Dynasty is warranted as well. Jammo (SM247) 23:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Team Dynasty does say that there are many paintball teams with "Dynasty" in their names, therefore I don't think it'd be fair to yoke that article to this discussion. Dynasty Paintball is painfully stubby and unsourced by comparison. Kimchi.sg 02:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unsourced even. Kimchi.sg 02:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There's no actual info or cites, plus it reads like a corporate plug... There are probably several dozen paintball teams who have matched Dynasty in notability over the years, so this at best belongs in a "List of notable paintball teams" type page. There's some debate about this over at Talk:Paintball too though. Kobold 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete as per WP:BAND. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Avondale (band)
Non-noteworthy. Does not meet requirements of WP:BAND.-- MyNameIsNotBob 23:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom Woldo 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. One self-released album and no notable members. The other claims of notability are not enough. -- Kicking222 01:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 02:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 13 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tovoulk
Obvious neologism, NN created language. Morgan Wick 23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as non sense. Equendil Talk 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Rubbish. BlueValour 23:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tqiifz fimivi Jammo (SM247) 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. Good one Jammo. Aplomado talk 00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, unsourced, nonsense, neologism, take your pick. Kimchi.sg 02:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - but I don't think it's speedy. - Richardcavell 06:15, 13 June 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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Board 8 Hierarchy
Complete non sense, speedy deletion contested Equendil Talk 23:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. -- La Pizza11 23:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Its not nonsense, because its important to us at B8. - apalachian. Person who created this article, yada yada, blah blah blah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apalachian (talk • contribs)
- Speedy delete, per nom. Speedy! ... discospinster talk 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, per nom. BlueValour 23:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay look, I don't want it on the real wiki, but B8Wiki isn't working. I'll get rid of it when I can transfer to B8 Wiki. Okay? - apalachian. Person who created this article, yada yada, blah blah blah.
- Speedy Delete nonsense. Jammo (SM247) 23:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, per nom. I was about to issue the {{prod}} myself but was narrowly beaten to it. The article fails Google Test and it cites no sources. At the best it would appear to be a form of of vanity article and at worst, nonsense. Alias Flood 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, there's no reason to be even debating this. Aplomado talk 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and BJAODN, it is one of the weirdest nonsense I've come across in a while. I've put the {{db-nonsense}} tag back on. Kimchi.sg 02:14, 13 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neoplex
The subject does not seem significant enough for Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRollerskate (talk • contribs)
- Delete fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:CORP. blue520 00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per blue520.--SomeStranger(t|c) 00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as adcruft. It's in Lagos so maybe it's haven for those scammer sons of bitches too. Aplomado talk 00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, #1,458,322 on the list of computer consultants trying to advertise themselves here. NawlinWiki 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Totally unsourced. Kimchi.sg 02:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Brad101 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Avalon 07:08, 15 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fanning's Fab 50
Listcruft, not notable. BoojiBoy 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This looks like it was copied directly from another website. An external link would be better than an entire page.--SomeStranger(t|c) 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sdedeo (tips) 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 13 June 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 (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Planet Sound's Top 50 of 2005
Listcruft, not notable. BoojiBoy 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Pretty much the definition of listcruft. Aplomado talk 00:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete listcruft indeed. Kimchi.sg 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as listcruft. Wikipedia has a system for that, see WP:CAT. Equendil Talk 01:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirected to Motilal Nehru Medical College. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Motilal Nehru Medical College and Hospital
Duplicate of Motilal Nehru Medical College Brad101 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect -- no need for afd. Sdedeo (tips) 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Kimchi.sg 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. RedRollerskate 18:54, 15 June 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 Deleted as a non-notable biography, probable hoax. (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amber Inniss
Probable hoax - no Google hits - in any case not-notable. BlueValour 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the epitome of irrelevance, even if it was true. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Here is the Google search for "Amber Inniss", Zero hits. --blue520 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Garbage. Socialite, millionaire nightclub owners who hang with the Hilton sisters would make the press, and show up in google. They still wouldn't be notable, but would at least be verifiable. - Fan1967 01:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NawlinWiki (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 June 2006
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. RedRollerskate 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- strong delete not notable, possible hoax. Trm3 11:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete this please it looks like hoax Yuckfoo 01:20, 17 June 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 Deleted as a non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anthony Inniss
Probable hoax - no relevant Google hits - in any case non-notable. BlueValour 00:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the epitome of irrelevance, even if it was true. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Here is the Google search for "Anthony Inniss". 5 non related hits.--blue520 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax. NawlinWiki 01:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Khoikhoi 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. RedRollerskate 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- strong delete not notable, possible hoax. Trm3 11:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, boring, fake article. Storm05 17:31, 15 June 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.