Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Red Cross of Southeastern Virginia

Non-notable Red Cross chapter; no different than any other chapter anywhere else in the U.S. Paul 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable-- AdamBiswanger1 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete - per nom --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pascal.Tesson 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anand 22:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to American Red Cross. No objection to recreation if referenced information is added that sets it apart from other chapters. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Armedblowfish. --Coredesat 22:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Nom. Doc Tropics 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -M^ask 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect in order to prevent recreation. Not an inherently notable chapter. Grandmasterka 04:49, 28 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. I've discounted a few votes based on mistaken reasons (for example, CSD A2) or which had no reasons at all. BTW, "not interesting" is not a reason to delete, just as "interesting" is not a reason to keep - both of those qualifications are extremely subjective. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Periodic table (Chinese)

This is article total junk. The periodic table in chinese?!? We can't have articles about how everything looks in diffrent languages, especialy when there isn't much diffrence. I suppose if we keep this we should have the periodic table in German, Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic and every other language too. And if we start making articles about how things look in Chinese then this would be the tip of the iceberg. Come on. This version of wikipedia is in English. This article should go on the chinese wikipedia. (and probably already is.) Tobyk777 00:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki if it's not there, otherwise Delete. Danny Lilithborne 00:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Danny. ^Triana_C 01:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a well written article, aimed at the english reader; it's interesting (at least, I found it so). The chinese PT is unique in using single characters for elements, setting it apart fron the EN, DE, ES, HE, AR and every other language too. Wikipedia is big enough for this sort of thing, if it is done well. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Comment: If Wikipedia had articles on how anything looks in Chinese, we'd melt their servers. The bit about the fact that they use single characters is interesting, but I don't think the periodic table in itself holds any attraction for the average bored reader. If they are looking for the periodic table, in Chinese, they must be able to read Chinese, and hence they are better off at the Chinese Wikipedia, where the information is, no doubt, more complete. Perhaps merge the historical information with Science and technology in China, which, on another note, is an article that could do with some work. ^Triana_C 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep/Conditional Keep "Well-written" and "interesting" and "wikipedia is big enough" are not really relevant arguments for an afd discussion, but there seems to be a marginal degree of notability here if it indeed is the only modern periodic table to not use the standard symbols Bwithh 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I originally voted delete, but now that I've chewed on it for a while, it really is pretty interesting (read:notable) how they represent chemical symbols in Chinese characters. No, this doesn't mean we have to have an article for everything translated into Chinese, because this translation is particularly difficult. AdamBiswanger1 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per riana. If it was a pure periodic table I would have voted for delete, but as it holds mild interest because of the use of characters instead of two letter abbrevations it should be kept. I don't think it deserves its own page however. --Viridae 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic and of interest to the English reader. Tevildo 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD:A2. --Coredesat 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wow, is the article really in Chinese? --Zoz (t) 11:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, The only issue here is that there isn't a word for "chinese element symbols". If there were a word that expressed that idea in English nobody would take issue with having an article under that name. Worf hypothesis in action! Ltbarcly 02:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Riana and Viridae. The Chinese table need not be duplicated here.--Jusjih 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Q Is this good enough for Wikisource? ~ trialsanderrors 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is not useful to English-speaking people who don't know Chinese. --Metropolitan90 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate for English Wikipedia. Peyna 03:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• The supporters of this article recognize that it is about a translation, but they also contend that the translation is valuable in itself. In essence, it is not a translation, but an article about the translation and the difficulties arising from it. This does not mean that we need articles for every language, because most are phonetic, and therefore elements are simple to represent. AdamBiswanger1 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• In response, I would echo what User:Motor says below. Peyna 11:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea, but I think the article is just too long to merge. Plus, I can't see whittling it down to an appropriate length. AdamBiswanger1 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. After reviewing Periodic table, I think I'll have to agree about the merge, plus having 3 images would overwhelm that article. However, given that the average EN Wikipedia reader will get little benefit from seeing the table in Chinese, perhaps it could be adequately covered in a section in Periodic table and we could just do away with the images, or provide links to them for the curious? I'll withdraw my "vote", but leave this comment in place for consideration. Peyna 14:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think this article makes a very interesting read and is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 03:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would have to disagree with Metropolitan90 and Peyna. This does seem useful to a native English speaker, even one who does not understand the slightest bit of Chinese. The entire article is written in English, only the picture of the periodic table itself has any Chinese in it. This also seems to be notable because of its explanation of the fact that it is the only modern periodic table that does not use letter abbreviations. --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs} 04:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and informative article that could use a bit of cleanup. In particular, the charts need reworking so that the English abbreviation of the element names doesn't overlap with the Chinese. Exploding Boy 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of encyclopedic interest. I could work on it a bit. -- Миборовский 05:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and cut down to fit in periodic table, only of passing interest. Jammo (SM247) 05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep even if within another article. Agree on notability as per Danielrocks123. ChaChaFut 05:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per nom MarineCorps 06:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep re the merge option, over at Periodic Table there is already a whole host of linked esoteric versions of the periodic table, of which this is just one. As a non-chemist, I found this one more interesting and useful than some of the others, such as the Periodic table (large version) and the contrasting Periodic table (big), even though they were all in English. --DaveG12345 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a translation service. The information about the problems of depicting the periodic table into this language might be interesting enough... but if they are, they belong on the periodic table article in a section on the basics of how it is translated into other languages. The specifics, namely, the actual periodic table in another language belongs on the relevant language's Wikipedia... where it can be verified by editors with the requisite language skills and knowledge. - Motor (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We have Chinese measure words, lots of articles on the Chinese language. It is far from a mere transwiki, or a translation. Rather it is to explain the concept of the Chinese language when applied to the sciences. I am absolutely horrified by this bad faith nomination. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• merge as rania - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete MrDolomite 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Maybe create a single article regarding periodic table in foreign languages? We certainly don't need dozens of different articles describing the issues for each language's periodic table. Wickethewok 14:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as inappropriate for the English Wikipedia. Keeping the article would set precedent and make deletions of similar articles more difficult. It's the "we have that, so why delete this" argument. Also, other people will want to add similar articles about their native/second/pet language. -- Kjkolb 14:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a problem that has been addressed by a number of editors, but many, including myself, have asserted in above comments that that is simply not true. If you wish to vote oppose, please do so, but always address arguments against yours. That way, your opinion is much more effective. AdamBiswanger1 17:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't see it addressed. Which comments are you referring to? -- Kjkolb 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment (In response to your idea that keeping this article would "set a precedent" allowing many articles of translations.) "This does not mean that we need articles for every language, because most are phonetic, and therefore elements are simple to represent." AdamBiswanger1 22:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: that only addresses more articles on periodic tables. A lot of things are likely to be difficult to translate, such as Macbeth into Navajo or the translation of rhyming poetry into an unrelated language while keeping the rhymes. Also, some editors don't make those kinds of distinctions. They will just say that the Chinese periodic table exists, so one in their language should exist. They may leave out the part about the Chinese periodic table being unusual through ignorance or to help their case. Frequently, the fact that there was a special circumstance in keeping an apparently similar article is not mentioned until it is too late to influence the outcome of the nomination. -- Kjkolb 05:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment': Logical fallacy. Your example of Najavo is using the concept of idioms and vocabulary, which is distinctly different. Poetry often stays in one culture: the elements are universal. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment: if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the situations are different. However, that is irrelevant. They only have to be similar enough in people's minds to influence their decision on an AfD nomination. -- Kjkolb 06:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Well, you have to remember that if a an article about a translation is notable, it's notable. It doesn't matter if there are 10 or 10,000. AdamBiswanger1 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment: I don't think that it is notable. The Rosetta Stone definitely, but not the Chinese periodic table. I think that we have covered everything and just simply disagree. I'm removing this page from my watchlist, so I probably won't notice other comments. -- Kjkolb 04:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article discussing the difficulties in representing the periodic table in Chinese characters. This isn't just a Chinese periodic table copied and pasted into the English Wikipedia, but an article about the Chinese periodic table and the way it's put together. TomTheHand 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is not a "Chinese translation", but an illustration of what is genuinely different about the Chinese version. As such it has merit. If it were simply "Here is the periodic table in Chinese" it would be an obvious deletion candidate, but this is written as an encyclopaedic article about the Chinese table. Fiddle Faddle 15:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to something like Names of the elements in Chinese. The existing title suggests that the periodic table is different in China; and at any rate the article is not about the periodic table per se, but about the way the elements are represented in Sinograms. Smerdis of Tlön
• Delete or transwiki to wikisource.--Peta 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article isn't in Chinese, so sending it to the Chinese wiki would be useless (and I'm sure they have it already). This article is more about the history/creation of the Chinese table, and in that has interest even in the English wiki. Should be moved to a new name though. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move per Ihcoyc/Smerdis of Tlön. The "periodic table in Chinese" was not difficult to creat, because it is the same in any language. This is simply about names/abbreviations for elements. JPD (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A good history of science type article. Only the table itself is in Chinese, the article is in English. Perhaps a move to Chinese Periodic table or Periodic table in China. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fiddle Faddle. it's at the intersection of Chemistry and Linguistics and is much more valuable if viewed as a lingusitics article than a chemistry one. hateless 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Keep. Interesting article discussing the difficulties in representing the periodic table in Chinese characters. This isn't just a Chinese periodic table copied and pasted into the English Wikipedia, but an article about the Chinese periodic table and the way it's put together. TomTheHand 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is not just a Chinese language article about the Periodic Table, but rather, an article showing what is different about the Chinese version and its history ( how it came about.) Advanced 19:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not English (at least the table.) --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't seem to get the logic? We should delete everything that explains a foreign language concept then? It's not merely a translation, as I said. The article on Chinese measure words is not merely a list of translations such as the English "3 sheets of paper" into Chinese. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Useful article about the translation. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep probably not the most interesting or relevant article but still an enjoyable read. Pascal.Tesson 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Provides information about how it is different from the English periodic table. Also helps fight systematic bias. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep ^{23 June 2006 23:11} Ste4k wrote: The sources do not visually match themeselves nor the article, and they are unlikely to match in the future. The article's images only show English characters. Technically if not deleted, move toWP:IFD for WP:CSD#I2. Thanks.
• Delete everything there — the topic (problems of writing the periodic table in Chinese) may be encyclopedic, but the tables themselves must go. If they're deleted, and the article is sourced, and still makes sense, then it might be moved. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is an English-language article about the periodic table. It displays the periodic table in Chinese as a visual. It belongs in the English Wikipedia. Fg2 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

*Merge - into Science and technology in China per Riana and Viridae. Save the useful content. Doc Tropics 01:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Changing my 'vote'. please see below. Doc Tropics 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - After more reading and some extra thought for the opinions expressed here I have to change from Merge to Keep. There's enough info worth saving and the article can apparently stand on its own. Doc Tropics 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The table itself in Chinese is not very useful (and probably interwikied from ours already). The way new characters are/were created for the periodic table is very notable (as it is otherwise extremely rare nowadays). Perhaps Names of chemical elements in Chinese is a better place for that information, though. Kusma (討論) 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have been following this discussion with interest. I think it is notable and an interesting additional piece of knowledge for someone who reads the main article on the periodic table and moves here. Chinese is a special case. We are not going to see lots of artciles on different labguages. However I would like to see the tables as they are now deleted and replaced by inclusion of the images. This way the display does not depend on the browser. --Bduke 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support of the suggestion in this vote by Bduke. I cannot see the symbols because I am lacking the appropriate language pack. Another editor said they were in english??? Fantastic idea, Bduke. Viridae 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this proposal: for one you can't copy and paste individual characters for an image, nor can they be modified. Keeping it as Chinese text is important because it carries over the individual information that makes up the character. If one lacks the language pack they can alternatively use the images, but it's not like we should delete the article on the Indian language because people lack support for Indic text. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What if each symbol was an image as suggested, but in the image description (on its image page) the text form of the symbol was there? Or the textual form of the symbol was underneath each image in the tabel. It strikes me that the Chinese periodic tble could probobly be found elsewhere, so the wikipedia version should be for interest/encyclopedic sake to illustrate the text. Not so people can use the symbols. Viridae 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Rather redundant if you ask me. I think we should use the image version as a fallback. People unable to view Chinese characters can just click on the link. After all, they are everywhere on the English Wikipedia - in the articles documenting the Chinese language, in the article Singapore, etc. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it shows how a Chinese periodic table is different from the English one.ac Topic is of encyclopedic value. Everything is in English except the table in Chinese. Article shows interest to readers as well. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, including the table. Even though I've forgotten all the kanji I ever knew (two semesters of conversational Japanese), it's interesting to see the similarities in related elements, like gasses and metals. (But then I think the English periodic table is cool too.) --Jamoche 04:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per nom if it isn't on the Chinese Wikipedia...it's not really that large an article in terms of writing and would serve Asian Wikipedians a lot more than those from other English-speaking origins. Which basically means it shouldn't be here. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Logical fallacy. Serving Asian Wikipedians more than it does with "English-speaking origins" not only constitutes some blatant racialism (are you saying that they can't speak English natively?), you've also made a leap of logic by assuming that it can't be valuable here as well. After all, how many people can an article about a music album serve? And yet it exists! Wikipedia has an extremely large audience, and in fact its audience for this article is not confined because it has Chinese characters. I am sure chemists of any language origin may be interested to find out how these elements are represented, just out of curiosity. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article just explains how the Chinese chart is written in Chinese, Ta-daaaah!! Medico80 09:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I move to strike out this vote because it doesn't take into account all the remarks so far, and in fact uses a logical fallacy. It "just explains" doesn't suddenly lead to a criteria for deletion. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I just didn't feel like spending many diplomatic words on why this article is absolutely useless and contains no nontrivial information. What language is the Russian chart of elements written in, you think? Medico80 22:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you had read the article, you'd know. Your comment provides more evidence that the article has value IMO. --DaveG12345 03:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am rather dismayed by the several comments here calling for a deletion/speedy deletion based on this article being not written in English. It most clearly is, and it makes me wonder whether some of the users even looked at the page before deciding. This isn't all the delete comments, there are several with valid points, but this article is no more "non-english" than any article we have about other languages that include any words/symbols. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The order and arrangement of the elements in the Chinese periodic table is the same as that in any other language. The only difference is that they use different symbols for the elements rather than the element abbreviations used in Roman characters. And seeing what those symbols are doesn't help me too much as an English-language user of the English Wikipedia, since I can't read Chinese. Maybe a very slight merge into Periodic table would be appropriate to incorporate the following sentence: "All languages use the same Roman-alphabet symbols for the elements except for Chinese." Metropolitan90 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

    Are you trying to say that some people don't make informed decisions? That's ridiculous. AdamBiswanger1 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment. You can't read Chinese, but you can still see the different representations of it. It is not merely "different symbols", as if you see in the Chinese character article it is not merely just allocating a different symbol for each character - many elements share many of the same radicals with other elements, ie. for properties such as solid, gas or liquid, or even energy level. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment - I'd like to re-emphasize that this article is not just about the Chinese periodic table, but about the process and challenges of translating it. I really think this article contains interesting and useful information that is worth saving. Doc Tropics 22:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just a thought. Is this article about the periodic table, or the elements. AdamBiswanger1 22:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is not a translation, it's about the translation. Notability: "Chinese is the only language that uses characters [...] for elements"; "characters specially-invented for the periodic table". --Zoz (t) 11:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Reading through the votes here, I think the issue is not with the information, but with the format. The first part of the article is interesting information, and should probably be in either periodic table or Science and technology in China, like riana suggested. The information in the table (the chinese character used for each element) is good information, but it is also true that Wikipedia is not a translation service. However, what about the Wiktionary? That sort of information should be in their listings, and I know that at least some of it is already. However, the format of the table isn't really useful to an English speaker. Think in terms of usage: an English speaker might run across an element written in Chinese, and want to know what it is in English. Or, the reverse: they may simply want to know what the Chinese character is for an element. In either case, looking at that table probably isn't going to help them, unless they also happen to know the atomic number of the element they want to look up. If they want to figure this information out, they're going to search for the element or the character on the Wikipedia, or hopefully the Wiktionary. The only use I see for the table is if they have a image of the character (rather than text they can copy and paste), don't know how to type it, and feel like looking through rows and rows of similar characters for an exact match. So, save the information, scrap the table. -- Rablari Dash 07:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm? I know most of the atomic numbers of the elements. I suspect anyone who studies chemistry after a while would. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's interesting to have the table there. It adds significantly to the feeling of completeness to the article from an aesthetic standpoint. Furthermore, I realize that Wikipedia is not a translation service, but the table is not hurting anything. This is a case where a little bit of leniency in terms of policy application is necessary. From a perfectly legalistic standpoint, should we get rid of the table? yes. But what is best for Wikipedia? Keep it. Now as far as your proposal to merge, I simply cannot imagine this large, cumbersome article fitting into Periodic table. Perhaps, though, what we could do is write a blurb about translations of elements into Chinese and other languages and have one of these:

Main article: Periodic table (Chinese)

. AdamBiswanger1 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. At this point, new opinions won't matter much. But I have recently voted to delete some articles about translation, and I think this falls on the right side of the line. This article is about the translation, and it's saying something interesting. Mangojuice^talk 05:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It is interesting reading in my opinion (about unicode, the chinese language/coulture, and also as reference), but it might also be considered as fancruft if it were kept in the English wikipedia. Then again, almost anything can be considered as fancruft. -- Bisqwit 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• WOO! PERIODIC TABLE!!! YEA!!!! AdamBiswanger1 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most modern psychologists agree that users who place more than one exclamation in a sentence probably need therapy :) --Doc Tropics 15:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect and Merge a few sentances into Periodic table of elements. Wikibout-Talk to me! 20:25, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International intangible standards

Non-notable standards created by a marginally (if at all) notable organization [1], added as vanity by its chairman Ken Standfield (User:Kenstandfield), whose sole edits (Special:Contributions/Kenstandfield) have been to promote himself, his books, and his institution. See also the following (closed) AfDs of other articles by Kenstandfield, which provide additional reasoning for deletion of these so-called "intangible management" topics:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle-time overhead
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intangible accounting

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a protologism by the same editor and is similar Vanispamcruftisement:

• Wait time
  --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as vanity.--Jersey Devil 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong Delete As Vanity, Advertising, Decdief, incomprehensiblity, and sheer junk Tobyk777 00:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - for various intangible reasons... :) David Oberst 00:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Both per all the above. Tevildo 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and advertising. doktorb | words 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete burninate the whole lot. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as absolute nonsense? ^Triana_C 01:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' Anyone else know what this article is talking about? AdamBiswanger1 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete whaaaaa?? —Khoikhoi 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete All I'm changing my vote. After careful reading, I can't even make sense of what this is supposed to be. Nuke 'em all and send Ken Standfield to bed without supper. Danny Lilithborne 01:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per everybody Dlyons493 Talk 01:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense. --Coredesat 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No claim of notability made. tan·gi·ble (adj.): capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value. in·tan·gi·ble (adj.): WP:NN. ~ trialsanderrors 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What? Teke 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely no encyclopedic value. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I gather this is essentially about work performance standards, but it is complete crap. Jammo (SM247) 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was almost tempted to throw a {{db-notenglish}} tag on this one.  :) --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs} 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, niche business theory and definate vanity. The entire thing could be housed in a brief mention in a more appropriate article; there is certainly no need to create an exhaustive documentation of his proposals. Kuru ^talk 12:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as CorpCruft. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Userfy if User:Kenstandfield wishes. Delete from main namespace, per nom and per the arguments previously evinced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intangible accounting. Non-neutral attempt to promote original concepts and methodology, which cannot be supported by sources other than a single author. No evidence has been presented that these are legitimate, widely-recognized concepts. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pascal.Tesson 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total chuff --Charlesknight 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and file under "Qué?". Anand 22:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ask original author for cleanup. If it isn't, delete or userfy.Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per all of the above. I second the motion to "...send Ken Standfield to bed without supper." Doc Tropics 02:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I struck out my frivolous remark which bit a newcomer. I apologized to Ken on his Talkpage and I want to repeat my apology here. Sometimes I get carried away and forget that people frequently put a lot of work into an article without being clear on all of our myriad standards and policies. That's still no excuse for biting and I'm sorry for it. --Doc Tropics 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to apologies for offending the people who have posted their comments here, it was not my intention. As I am new to Wikipedia, I was wondering if I could ask for some contructive guidance on what could be done to create an entry that would be acceptable to all those here?

• The standards are generally referred to as 'intangible standards' [2][3]
• Intangible standards are a new idea and I had hoped that Wikipedia could provide a way in which to create discussion and advancement on the topic. How this advancement occurs is uncontrollable by any specific person or organization - it is more about sharing and interaction. Was this a fair position for me to assume?
• I'd very much appreciate constructive feedback so I can save your time flaming me for future regarding postings.
• PS: After reading your comments I have been to bed without supper, apologies again.

-- KenStandfield

For reference, I have posted an explanation response on Ken's talk page here: [4]. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Userfy then. (This means moving the article into userspace, instead of article space, so it would be at User:Kenstandfield/International intangible standards. That would give you time to improve the article at your own pace, and it could then be listed at deletion review. If you didn't manage to get the article up to speed, well, it's your userspace. I see you've already gotten contructive feedback on your user page, as well as offers for further help. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Userfy should have been suggested earlier. Userfying does amount to deletion from the main article namespace, of course. Adding "userfy" to my suggestion above. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 25 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, worthless advert.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Value of Data Media Security

Advert. "Buy our Media Safes!... sigh. Brad101 00:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - essay, spam, oh yeah and adver. per nom. Too bad there isn't a good speedy criteria for this. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete pure advert.--Jersey Devil 00:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As noted above by AbsolutDan there is not catagory in WP:SPEEDY for spam. In fact, it says spam is not subject to a speedy. Viridae 01:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - spam doktorb | words 00:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AbsolutDan. ^Triana_C 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pure unadulterated spam. Viridae 01:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert and WP:OR.AdamBiswanger1 01:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything that isn't an advertisement is already covered at physical security and its progeny. Peyna 03:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Blatant advertisement. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam, but not Speedy per WP:CSD (noncritereon 8). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SPAM Jammo (SM247) 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the original version of the article was clearly spam; commercial link and all. What's left is nothing that isn't covered elsewhere. Kuru ^talk 12:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- ad -- MrDolomite 14:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement Ladybirdintheuk 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - surprised not to find any article on "fire safe", could do with a good NPOV article on the overall topic. Ace of Risk 16:44, 23 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, advert--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swb consulting inc.

Advert, copyvio, no respect for wikipedia whatsoever Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: See also SWB Consulting Inc., just in case it comes back after the copyvio is dealt with. --Calton | Talk 05:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Lovely spam, wonderful spam. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to mirror a Craigslist entryBjones 01:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't appear to fit WP:CORP, for starters. ^Triana_C 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam of a nn company. I see no evidence of independent reviews, etc. AdamBiswanger1 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Adam. —Khoikhoi 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I hate spam. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP (online links are from the company or brief mentions). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another small nn company. --Calton | Talk 05:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with spam, eggs, bacon and spam. Jammo (SM247) 05:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- ad -- MrDolomite 14:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not an article, an ad.--Andeh 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn company, ad, spam.--Dakota ~ 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete - advert, not notable --Benjaminstewart05 19:12, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Mike Cohen

Seems quite non-notable; one of many such introduced by User:Israelbeach and socks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't fit WP:BIO. ^Triana_C 01:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment At the very least it needs to be renamed. Note that the current Mike Cohen article is about two different people! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not any more it isn't... :) Viridae 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A few comments. 1. If Cohen does belong to a special unit in the IDF it should not be posted on Wiki. 2. Do not understand jpgordon obcessive personal attacks against userIsraelbeach who is no longer on Wiki and thus cannot defend himself. I, too, am a "suspected" sockpuppet of Israelbeach, (as anyone who supports Israelbeach has been labeled a sockpuppet without any evidence.) Only thing missing here, is if I was a sockpuppet of Israelbeach why then am I voting to delete here? As Wikitruth declares: "some things are just a mystery at Wikipedia." Potterseesall 07:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hasn't done anything that sets him apart from similarly situated individuals that would make him worthy of an encyclopedia article. Peyna 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable; only claim to fame is being part of the Galilee institute, and being a researcher isn't notable per se. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 04:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. -Medtopic 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mike Cohen is not notable. There are thousands of reserve majors in the Israel Defense Forces. What disturbs me is that if he does belong to a special unit in the IDF, it should not be posted on Wikipedia. Potterseesall 07:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Since I am unfamiliar with how the IDF works, why is it a concern for such information to be posted on Wikipedia? Unless it is illegal to post such information, Wikipedia is not censored. Peyna 11:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not so much illegal as a risk to his safety. (well it might be illegal - not sure) Viridae 11:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete What seems stranger is why does user:potterseesall suddenly introduce the "elite unit" term which appears nowhere else - except of course by posts by [[user:Israelbeach] on other forums. Oh, and why did user:potterseesall put up the original entry at all - with coincidentally abusive ans false information about Dr Cohen. Coincidental in that it happened almost simultaneusly with a dispute on another forum where user:Israelbeach had a public spat with Dr Cohen and came out looking a little shabby ... hmmmm... "suspected" sock puppet???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hpaami (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. I am Dr. Mike Cohen. I am a PR spinmaster by trade and a scholar by night. I am not notable in the encyclopedic sense and I am all for the deletion of the reference that was posted by someone other than myself. I am not a Wiki user and really prefer to stay out of this fray. As has been said here by others there are thousands upon thousands of reserve majors in the Israel Defense Forces - I am only one of the guys. For those who fear security - that is not an issue as many IDF special units are no longer very secret, especially us old folks. Please feel free to delete this entry with my blessings.
• Delete - non-notable --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pascal.Tesson 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete quite simply nn. and fails WP:BIO, and beyond that has no real reason for expectional treatment. --Wisden17 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Only a week old. Has not been given sufficient time to develop. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have lived in Israel for over two decades and never heard of Mike Cohen or The Galilee Institute. Karnei 18:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the above. Bonnieisrael 11:50, 27 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 —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arfenhouse

Fairly typical web vanity/spam, failing WP:WEB miserably. There's no evidence of commentary or analysis outside of forums, no significant awards, and the movies are hosted on Newgrounds (a rather indiscriminate host). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No significant results on google. Viridae 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, someone musta spent a lot of time on this one... but i suppose it does fail WP:WEB... ok, ok, delete. ^Triana_C 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ("No evidence of commentary or analysis outside of forums") AdamBiswanger1 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. --Coredesat 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Same as everyone else: fails WP:WEB. My mistake for contributing to it so much. TheGreenHerring 02:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hate to do it as it's a very substantial article (though it's plot would have needed rewritting), but simply not notable per WP:WEB. Hopefully it'll eventually get a little media coverage so that the substantial article can be restored. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 05:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, though it does look pretty funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as above -- MrDolomite 14:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:WEB --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn., fails WP:WEB, although has clearly taken a while to do. Also worth noting that none of the pictures have fair-use rationales. --Wisden17 22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has references. But delete the pictures if fair-use rationales aren't provided. Would benefit from inline references. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  Near as I can tell, all of the references are to the works themselves. The link to the Pac-Man movie article on IMDB doesn't actually back up anything claimed in this article; it's more of a "for more information" link. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• It has references... that is not to say that it is well-referenced. If it had more inline references (instead of external links), then it would be easier to tell what was verified and what wasn't, and move unverified portions to the talk page (or at least put Template:cite needed next to them). However, this is cause for cleanup, in my opinion, not deletion. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--128.115.27.10 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Arfenhouse is a classic piece of web history Orbframe 18:44, 27 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. Merge voters, note that Bill Simmons currently does have a section on this.

[edit] Reggie Cleveland All-Stars

I'm a huge Bill Simmons fan so it pains me to nominate this, but 86 Google hits for something made up in an online column doesn't meet notability guidelines for me. It's a hilarious concept though. BoojiBoy 01:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. I think I'll make an article for my fantasy baseball team. AdamBiswanger1 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - are 'stupid' and 'vaguely racist' sufficient criteria for deletion? ^Triana_C 01:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, inflammatory, not notable. --Coredesat 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Hilarious. On second thought, Delete. Ltbarcly 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Peyna 03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as above -- MrDolomite 14:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Bill Simmons is awesome, however, we really don't need an article on it. No opposition to putting a mention of this into the Bill Simmons article though. Certainly the "suggestions from the web" section is inappropriate. Wickethewok 14:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge relevant data into Bill Simmons article and Delete this article. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 15:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Like BoojiBoy, I'm a die-hard Bill Simmons fan. I didn't really need to vote on this one, since it will obviously be deleted, but I jsut wanted to pay my respects to one of my favorite columnists ever. God rest your soul, Jarrod Washburn. -- Kicking222 22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Irixman's vote above. --Wisden17 22:04, 23 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. 11 deletes, 3 keeps, one week keep. Tipping the balance is the fact that the article text now appears to be a copyvio of http://www.baskervilles.net/narrative.php . —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baskervilles

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 NN band. Deprodded. Deleted once before on A7. Some marginal assertion of notability - albums were issued on a very obscure label. Website for the label unconvincing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ^Triana_C 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy G4 if it's been recreated. Delete for non-notability otherwise. Tevildo 01:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

G4 already considered and rejected, sorry. Tevildo 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Very Weak Keep. Thanks to recent article updates, _just about_ scraping at the boundaries of a couple of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Obviously more notable than the typical garage band we usually have to deal with. Not quite comfortably home yet, perhaps, but look like they might make it. Tevildo 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. From what i've researched here, it fails WP:BAND AdamBiswanger1 01:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but if that picture has an appropriate license it should go to WP:BJAODN. Peyna 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MUSIC, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Teke 03:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Inner Earth 09:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as a redirect to The Hound of the Baskervilles. —Lamentation :( 14:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as above -- MrDolomite 14:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hi, please do not delete this, Baskervilles are a very good band, they have over one thousand listeners on last.fm (a music blogging service people can sign up for that counts all the songs you listen to), you can check this here (look to the top left of the screen and it says how many listeners they have) [5]. Baskervilles have also recorded a music video you can watch it here... [6]. The albums by Baskervilles are available on the massivley popular online store Amazon.com, you can check this out here [7] and here [8]. Also when you search for 'baskervilles' on google.com, the first thing that comes up is a link to their album download (which is available also on itunes) and a link to their official website [9]. Their first two cd's WERE on an indie record label but they sold very well, they are going to be releasing their next record on a swedish label 'kitty litter records'. There are lots of bands signed to indie labels on wikipedia 'From Bubblegum To Sky' being a prime example of this, so is musician 'Tess Wiley' her albums have also been onyl released on indie record labels and on her wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tess_Wiley) there isnt even a list of her discography please consider leaving this up.

I have now updated the article with even more information. Frombubblegumtosky

• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as missing WP:MUSIC - no national tours (the example given by the user above of Tess Wiley is bad, as she was actually a member of Sixpence None The Richer), no records other than the two on a small indie label... not quite there yet. Tony Fox (speak) 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment Actually Tess Wiley was only a member of Sixpence None The Richer for one year, and she only released one CD with them 'This Beautiful Mess', and that was on a small indie record label called 'Rex Music', they did not acieve major success until many years later, also my other example 'From Bubblegum To Sky' is a good example, he has only released two cd's on an indie label, also 'Freezepop' is a good example, they are also on an indie label, heck, the members of the band 'Freezepop' still sell cd's on their website and post them out themselves. Baskervilles, while they are not the most popular band (they are one of my favourites), they have lots of listeners and fans, and i think they deserve a wikipedia article. also sorry about my edits on this page, i'm not very good at this coding stufffrombubblegumtosky

Frankly, From Bubblegum to Sky looks like it misses WP:MUSIC too. (Anyone else think so?) As for Ms. Wiley, she's done international tours, as part of a notable band, and thus does meet the notability requirements. And Freezepop has had songs used in internationally popular video games. Please, read the music notability requirements. If you can make this band meet them, fire away. Tony Fox (speak) 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't 'vote' (this is not a vote) more than once in the discussion. I've struck your second keep. Tony Fox (speak) 22:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP Great band, please keep this up hAnkyPhexTwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.241.129 (talk • contribs)

• comment that's my point Tony Fox, both 'From Bubblegum To Sky' and 'Baskervilles', although on indie labels, are very popular bands, information should be available on here about them, banning bands on indie labels from the wikipedia site is like banning movie info for films that were straight to dvd, Baskervilles have been mentioned in the london metro (the free newspaper you get on trains and buses) also the band have played out of new york city "The group made one trip outside of New York City in the summer of 2002 to perform at a museum opening at the Migros Museum in Zurich, Switzerland featuring the artwork of Yayoi Kusama and Michel Auder" they have lots of fans and their label, have got their music available in so many places, you can pick up their cd's in regular stores and in most popular onlien stores, heres a list of notable stores that sell baskervilles cds/mp3s... Emusic, ITunes, Amazon.com, AOL Music Now, Buy.com, Tower Records (and towerrecords.com), i mean, if the label they were signed to was really small, the baskervilles CD's wouldn;t have such a large distribution.Frombubblegumtosky

• This is discussion, not a vote, so there's no need to try to stuff the ballot. Consider using Comment instead if you have more to say. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

comment well firstly, if it's not a vote then why does it matter if i put KEEP at the beggining of my sentence? i just put it there so people know my text is about keeping the article on Baskervilles on the site, i've never done this before and i know little about the technicalities, i put together the Baskervilles article mostly by copying and pasting codes, i'm just trying to get my point across on why i think it should stay here. Frombubblegumtosky

Because the initial term of 'delete' or 'keep' (and others) expresses the general idea of comment the post is about to make reguarding the article. Repeatedly posting multiple comments where you intend your summary to be a 'keep' is misleeding to the administrator who has to review this. Kevin_b_er 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: it's not a vote in the sense that if X% of people say "keep" or "delete", that will determine the outcome of the discussion. However, the closing administrator does look for some sort of consensus, and repeated bolded use of the word "keep" by one contributor could confuse the administrator into thinking one side had more support than it did. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

comment sigh... yes, but if this is not a vote, then it doesn't matter how many times keep is written, because it's not like the administrator is counting them, and as you can clearly see i do not oppose this anyway, i already changed all my keeps to comments before you even wrote your message, anyway, i don;t think theres any point in arguing when i already did as asked, just please read the POINTS i am making on why this should be kept, as they are very good and a lot of the delete comments made here are pretty lame Frombubblegumtosky

comment wait a second, it says at the top "This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors " does that mean that only what you lot think counts to whether this gets deleted or not? Frombubblegumtosky

Don't be offended. However, often new users are unfamiliar with our deletion policies, and occasionally someone tells their friends about a deletion, who come and could make it appear that one side had more support. Thus, the closing administrators (who decide the outcome of the debate) often ignore the opinions of new or unregistered users. However, you are encouraged to express your views, and may convince other users in your favor. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

comment so it is true then? unless i convince the majority of the editors, it'll get deleted? it's not like wikipedia is getting published to a book, i think the rules of wikipedia mean its hugely limiting itsself on how much information it can contain, when i first found wikipedia, i thought "heres a site where you can find everything" i guess i was wrong, i mean, blocking posting of information that is pointless and unknown is one thing, but to not allow an article on a band that are popular and that have two cd's released that are widely available in music stores in the usa and in dozens of popular online stores, thats not a good idea.Frombubblegumtosky

Just trying to explain procedure. You might want to cite WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. And not necessarily a majority of editors, it's really up to the closing administrator. Sometimes, debates end with a "lack of consensus". Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Radio Plays It seems they have been played on a radio station, check this link out KEXP 90.3FM i'm not certain as to how popular this radio station is, as i live in the uk. Frombubblegumtosky

• Keep Seems to have been improved since being listed on AfD, and is relatively well-referenced. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment lol, it's not like i know anyone from the band or anything, i just really like these guys, i think theyre awesome, they have a 4 track EP coming out on kitty litter records in july, and they have a new album due out later this year too, while they haven't hit massive MAINSTREAM success yet, i think they are well known enough to be on wikipedia. Frombubblegumtosky

• comment i have just added more info, by including information on a Baskervilles side project 'Autoparty' i have added the link to their radio performance also (which the radio station recorded and have put online available to stream) from what i gather its quite a popular radio station. Please please let this stay, oh Evolving Artist Internet Television have been playing the Baskervilles music video for a while now too. Evolving Artist Internet Television show music videos from many other popular artists like Bright Eyes, Buzzcocks, Death Cab For Cutie, Goldfrapp, Mates Of State, NOFX, and a ton more, that website even produces its own internet television series! Frombubblegumtosky
• Keep per Armedblowfish but tag for wikify/cleanup - kill the non-NPOV/add some paragraphing/linkage - and use # instead of manual track numbers. I also don't care how much their download CD costs. Remove the blatant record shop ad link/WP:NOT vio. They squeak in WP:MUSIC. --DaveG12345 04:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment i've paragraphd the text and removed the cd shop link, i really have no idea what else you meant, i am only just learning how to edit wikipedia and am unfamiliar with most of the terms, do you mean put a # at the beggining of the track names instead of numbers? and what do you mean by "Kill the non-NPOV"? Frombubblegumtosky

• You might find how to edit a page helpful. NPOV means "Neutral point of view", so "non-NPOV" means biased. See WP:NPOV. It's generally not a criteria for deletion, since it's almost always fixable. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Another reccomendation: put links that are were actually used to write the article or check facts in a "References" section, instead of a "External links" section, per WP:EL. A lot of people ignore that guideline, so in AfDs I normally assume "External links" are references, but its a good idea for keeping track of what is necessary to verify the material, and what is just extra reading for convenience. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment Ah ok got it the # key automatically numbers them, ok i've changed that too. Frombubblegumtosky
  • Comment Good work. The article still needs wikifying. You will find some pointers on what to wikify here, especially in this section and its links. --DaveG12345 04:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• THEY MEET WP:MUSIC CRITERIA! hey again, i just checked WP:MUSIC and they meet one of the criteria "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." look above for the link (or on the article page in the 'external links' at the bottom) They played 14 songs, live, on KEXP 90.3FM, a national readio station, so they meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. You can even listen to a bit of it at the radio stations website HEREFrombubblegumtosky
  • KEXP is not a "national radio network"; it's a single station. —Lamentation :( 10:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment drats, lol, oh well :( Frombubblegumtosky
    • I'm invoking Benford's Law of Controversy. Teke 04:49, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy of the commons

Term apparently only used by Lawrence Lessig, and apparently only once. --InShaneee 01:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Tragedy of the commons, a well-established concept. Tevildo 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even notable enough for a place in the Tragedy of the commons article. It's a nifty little play-on-words that Lawrence Lessig used, thinking he was clever. AdamBiswanger1 01:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - man, when Leonardo DiCaprio became famous for Titanic, and I was younger and sillier, I came up with Leonerdo DiCrappio. Pretty funny, huh? Do I get my own article now? ^Triana_C 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Not until you've made a Star Wars fan film in your back garden. Get with the program. -- GWO
  • My sister and I called him DiCrapprio even before Titanic came out. Oh, and also delete. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 11:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, essentially fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is Reason a reliable source? I'd say it's worth a one-liner in the Tragedy of the anticommons article (Done). We can put a redirect there though, Lessing is well-known enough that this might be a search term. ~ trialsanderrors 02:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Coredesat, plus a shout-out for Riana_dzasta. Your DiCrappio article would fit well in WP:BJAODN or Uncyclopedia. Agent 86 03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologisms must die. Jammo (SM247) 05:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I like Lessig and what he has to say... but this does not justify its own article. It is just not that notable yet. - Motor (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- per nom -- MrDolomite 14:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. -- Docether 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move ^{23 June 2006 23:33} Ste4k wrote: Move to WP:BJ based on WP:PN.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as userfied by Uareinmyscope.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide Junkies Clan SJ

NN group of people who play an online game, vanity &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 15 members. 15. AdamBiswanger1 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "Clan member Uareinmyscope made this wiki"... good on him. But no. ^Triana_C 01:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per above. --Coredesat 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What does delete per above mean and if you look I have deleted everything that you asked me to delete so please remove the deletion proposal -the writer of suicide junkies clan sj—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uareinmyscope (talk • contribs) .

Comment Delete per above means that my reasons for wanting this deleted are the same as everyone else above me. --Coredesat 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a discussion with the article's author, and it was just a miscommunication about the nature of Wikipedia (i.e. notability, Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information). So, I explained the difference between a user page and an article, and he said he'd be fine with Userfying the page. Deletion shouldn't be an issue now. AdamBiswanger1 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close, article seems to have been userfied. --Coredesat 08:05, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugonna Wachuku

Looks impressive but when you go into the detail there's not much verifiable content. There's a form letter reply from Kofi Annan's secretary, the book The Great Place is from PublishAmerica, he's chairman of a non-notable company, he has a B.A and is related to a notable politician.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:V and WP:BIO. --Coredesat 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone. Difficult for me to do, but I think its' the right thing to do. AdamBiswanger1 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not Delete This article does not violate Wikipedia verifiable content principles asUser:Dlyons493 suggests. The quoted letter from Kofi Annan is verifiable. And a copy can be faxed to wikipedia's Jimmy Wales if need be. The letter was written and signed by Kofi Annan himself and not his secretary. Kofi Annan himself can be contacted by Wikipedia. So, I don't see why my fellow editors are saying that the Ugonna Wachuku article is not verifiable.

Facts in the article are verifiable when looked at closely with an open mind. Webcity Resources, Ltd that Wachuku is Chairman of is also verifiable in Lagos, Nigeria - except that the Web site of the company is currently being upgraded and is not available for the moment. If that company is a problem, then as the contributor of the article, I can remove that sentence. Also, The Great Place a book by Ugonna Wachuku is also real and verifiable - if only User:Dlyons493, Coredesat and AdamBiswanger1 would be objective and not cynical. Lets do the right thing and keep the article, my good friends. (Lord777)

• • Comment Per the Google test, the letter from Kofi Annan doesn't seem to be verifiable, and Mr. Wachuku's company only gets 3 unique hits (which means that it fails WP:WEB) - leaders of non-notable companies are also not notable. Also, after searching on Google, the only connection to the Nigerian UN delegation that I can find is that Mr. Wachuku is the webmaster of the delegation's website, a non-notable position. Being a nephew of a notable figure does not automatically make someone notable. Finally, the UNESCO Manifesto 2000 is a noteworthy document/event, but Mr. Wachuku did not achieve any renown by signing it. Therefore, the article fails both WP:BIO and WP:V. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I'm just stating my findings and Wikipedia policy. --Coredesat 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment With every due respect and honour to Coredesat, as Wikipedia policy states, the Google test that he used is not conclusive evidence. A commendation letter Kofi Annan wrote to the author should not be verified by searching on google. Mr. Wachuku's work with the Nigerian UNESCO Delegation is also verifiable and is not about being webmaster. It's not Nigerian UN delegation as Coredesat wrote above. There is a difference between the Nigerian Representative at the UN in New York - and the Nigerian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO in Paris, France. I've already explained Mr. Wachuku's company. And have also removed it from the article to avoid further unwarranted wrangling.

As I said earlier, objectivity counts here. And all the points Coredesat makes above are not notable indeed too. Let us not use methods and sentiments not supported by Wikipedia policy. You might, as well, put-in the Jaja Wachuku article for deletion. There are hard and verifiable facts in life that should not be limited to searches on google. (Lord777 11:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

• Delete Only substantial claim to notability is a book from a vanity press. Severe verifiability problems as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not Delete Comment Objectivity counts here in terms of Wikipedia policy, Andrew Lenahan. What are these "severe verifiability problems" according to you. The United States Diplomatic Mission to South Africa: http://pretoria.usembassy.gov/wwwhpao.html even has The Great Place in their library for South Africans - if you care to search or to telephone them. (Lord777 12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Please only make one delete/keep recommendation. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as all indications are that the subject does not meet WP:BIO, though I am willing to consider any further evidence provided.--Isotope23 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established; receiving a form letter from a notable politician does not confer notability to the recipient.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:45, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Place

Non-notable book from PublishAmerica (by Ugonna Wachuku on AfD above)

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The book has not won any awards, nor has it been mentioned in any notable publications. Any notability the author may have does not automatically make the book itself notable. Also, the article reads like an ad. --Coredesat 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded my reasons for deletion, after getting a message about this on my talk page. --Coredesat 11:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is another case of User:Dlyons493 and Coredesat not being object in nominating articles for deletion at will. That a book is a "Non-notable" book as User:Dlyons493 said does not mean that it violates any of the Wikipedia principles and rules; including the three cardinal content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). [[The Great Place]] by Ugonna Wachuku is out there and can be bought.

The author spent years of research and toil writing The Great Place. So, I'd advise Coredesat and User:Dlyons493 to buy a copy of the book and read for themselves before they start referring to it as a "Non-notable" book. This article should not be deleted. I therefore humbly call for the removal of deletion notices on both the Ugonna Wachuku article and The Great Place article. Please, let us not just nominate articles for deletion without being objective and realistic in our views. Thank you and GOD bless you all abundantly with wisdom. (Lord777 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

• Delete Vanity-press book. See also author's AfD above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not Delete Objectivity counts here in terms of Wikipedia policy, Andrew Lenahan. What are these "severe verifiability problems" according to you. The United States Diplomatic Mission to South Africa: http://pretoria.usembassy.gov/wwwhpao.html even has The Great Place in their library for South Africans - if you care to search or to telephone them. (Lord777 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC))
• Delete. I'm going to address notability rather than the article's content or tone, which should (and must) be cleaned up if the article survives this AfD. This book described by this article does not seem to be sufficiently notable, per the note on notability criteria in the book guidelines. It was published through PublishAmerica, a vanity-press-style publisher; unfortunately, PublishAmerica does not seem to give out sales figures for its books; however, its single all-time-best-seller only sold 5,200 copies ^[1], indicating a much smaller figure for this book. Books from this publisher are printed only on-demand and are "sold" to libraries or bookstores (ie, as consignment model) by the authors themselves, apparently without upfront printing of any kind. This virtually ensures only the most minimal sort of distribution for books from this publisher. Certainly, libraries retain many new books they are given, and many authors from vanity presses donate their books to libraries, particularly those which the author feels the book has a particular connection to (say, the library of the US Diplomatic Mission to South Africa). However, you would have an extremely difficult time finding this book on a shelf in a physical bookstore, or being purchased by a major library for addition to its collection. The basic rule for a book's notability, as cited here, is "reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable". This book has no Amazon.com sales ranking , and I can't find a single major periodical's review of this book. Considering these factors in conjunction with its vanity-press status, I am forced to say that it's almost certainly neither "reasonably spread" nor "well-known". When it is published by a major publisher with a distribution system that is not "on-demand," and when several reviews of it appear in major periodicals, then it may be notable. I recommend deletion without prejudice on the grounds of nonnotability. Best, Docether 18:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Concur with Docether; non-notable book from well-known vanity press, doesn't have sales rank at Amazon. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of newspapers in Mongolia

This page serves no purpose at all, it has pretty much no potential, and I am really unable to find any usefulness for it(especially with the list having no entries). SuperDT 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep added six newspapers after a google search, took me all of five minutes. Might try to fix articles before you list them for deletion next time. --Eivind^t@c 09:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Eivind F Øyangen. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know what I think about lists of newspapers, but they're certainly of more value than a lot of the lists on here, and targeting the Mongolian one doesn't really change the situation. GassyGuy 10:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for all reasons stated. --Coredesat 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and hopefully clear up the redlinks. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep clean up redlinks. --Oreb 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. Carlossuarez46 06:38, 25 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 to Girl Genius —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaslamp Fantasy

Neologism for steam punk invented for a singular webcomic. It's not a genre term as the article claims, as the genre is populated by one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahnchen (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More of a proposed neologism at this point. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Girl Genius; It certainly says a lot about the Foglio's attitude towards their not-really-a-webcomic (HINTS: Phil Foglio, Hugo Award) and other articles of its kind would kill for this sort of production information. Nifboy 06:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Girl Genius. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Girl Genius -- MrDolomite 14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the Girl Genius article actually describes it as steam punk, being that's what it is. - Hahnchen 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and add a very brief mention to Girl Genius that the author describes it as a "Gaslamp Fantasy" though the genre is generally called steampunk. TomTheHand 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 24.23.141.156 06:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Girl Genius --Oreb 20:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any relevent bits to the main article. --Kunzite 23:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Girl Genius. It's a lovely phrase, but doesn't seem to have been used outside the context of GG. --Calair 00:42, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaterunner

Non-notable game - less than 100 Ghits.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 02:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep informative for cult gaming--Yakksoho 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- per nom -- MrDolomite 14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable RPG. Wickethewok 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability/small g-hits lack of fan sites.--Andeh 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:05, 23 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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory B. Kent

Non-notable game (Gaterunner) author - article is mainly crystal ball.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 02:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom GassyGuy 10:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as above -- MrDolomite 14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:06, 23 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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahad Israfil

non-notable person, plenty of people survive serious gunshot wounds, and while it's a great story, I don't think it is very encyclopedic or well known. Peyna 01:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Not every gunshot victim makes Ripley's Believe It or Not: [10] -Medtopic 04:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, per Medtopic. --Coredesat 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Google returns over 1000 hits. On the first page of relevant hits (the first 10), all are unique content, none are Wiki mirrors, and content appears in four different languages. This person is well-known. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Not sure if I should comment here really since I'm the one who put the article on in the first place, but here's my rationale: Phineas Gage is on there and this case is just as notable. Yes, many people survive serious gunshot wounds... but very very few survive what amounts to a traumatic hemispherectomy and make such an (almost) complete recovery. And he is well known... so well known in fact that I've said "Have you heard about Ahad can't-remember-his-other-name" to people and they know who I mean straight away, and I'm hardly local to Dayton, Ohio, coming from South West England. OK, I admit it, I try to add outlandish articles to Wikipedia and would be disappointed if I didn't get an AFD straight away, but I wouldn't do ones that actually deserved to be deleted. Milvinder 13:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (voted above): Phineas Gage is definitely more well-known than this person. I would say that Gage verges on a household name in many places. Nonetheless, this case is important, verifiable, and notable. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 13:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

On edit: It's perfectly legitimate for the article's creator to comment on AfD, so long as you identify yourself as the creator. - 13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep -- agree with Medtopic above -- MrDolomite 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me, and getting into Ripley's just isn't a sufficient assertion of notability to me. I doubt we have an article about the guy who ate the most hard-boiled eggs. The case of Phineas Gage had great importance to neuroscience; if this person's case has similar influence, then that influence should be covered in the article and I'll change my vote. TomTheHand 14:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've seen this chap on numerous shows on TV in the past, very extraordinary incident.--Andeh 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. For a start it has media coverage, which gives notability. Well done Milvinder for innovative articling. Tyrenius 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm assuming good will and accuracy, that he really lost half of his brain. If so, I think this is a keep, but a stronger reference would help. snug 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep - no problems keeping this, verifiable. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per verifiability. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've actually heard of this, it was covered on a few different media outlets, at the very least across the U.S. The guy lost half his brain! Grandmasterka 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please agree with the above Yuckfoo 18:40, 28 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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin T. Cotton

While the article claims he is "world-renowned," I don't see anything that makes this guy any more worthy of an encyclopedia article than the average ENT specialist. I'd say it's vanity, but it doesn't appear to be self-created. Peyna 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE, the page was moved from Dr. Robin Cotton to Robin T. Cotton after the start of the AFD, and after some of the comments were made below. - Motor (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: if the article survives this AfD, it probably should be renamed to Robin T. Cotton to conform with naming conventions. Peyna 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Robin T. Cotton (he meets WP:PROFTEST) and clean-up the parts copied from his biography. (Anyone else tired of those who copy-and-paste biographies with just enough changes to avoid speedy delete, then leave it to others to clean-up? Sheesh!) -Medtopic 05:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Cotton is also an author of more then thirty ENT related books and articles", according to the article. That's both impressive and evidence of being notable. I concur with the recommendation that the article be renamed. TruthbringerToronto 05:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rename & tag for cleanup, as per Medtopic. "Robin T. Cotton" seems to pass WP:GOOG (though he flunks the USENET part dismally). Doing the test also throws up the fact that he won the 'Ronald McDonald Lifetime Achievement Award 2004'... They do not just give those things out to anybody. --DaveG12345 07:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and cleanup, meets WP:PROFTEST. --Coredesat 07:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to pass the proftest. I moved the page to Robin T. Cotton, and fixed the AFD link to still point here... but I'm not sure it's the correct procedure. - Motor (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally it's a good idea to wait until something like this is over to avoid confusion, since there isn't any terrible harm in keeping the article at the wrong name in the meantime. I went and changed this page and the main AfD list to line up with the new article name to make it easier on everyone. Peyna 11:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't see much point in letting things drag out for five days while people spend time commenting mostly on the page naming. I was just about to add a note at the top for the closing admin and anyone coming here to comment/vote rather than alter the heading completely, but whatever works. - Motor (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point; I guess it's a weighing of the "confusions". On one hand, a lot of people might get confused by so many votes to rename and think it was posted at AfD solely on the basis of the name; whereas on the other hand, a lot of people might get confused when the AfD title and the article name don't match up. Peyna 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as writer of this article I made sure it passed the proftest and met wiki standards. Yes I turned to his own biography as a reference point, but it was genuinely written. Plus I plan on expanding it with more sources later. This man is world-renowned ENT who has an extensive background and deserves an entry to wikipedia. I mean come on, this guy got the Ronald McDonald Lifetime Achivement award, has invented the very surgeries that go into modern trachs, and all that jazz. - Cormacalian (11:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per above. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable academic. --TeaDrinker 21:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I second the above. The doctor23 11:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with re-write to remove the barrage of peacock language like "world-renowned", "groungbreaking", "one of the busiest" and "large international attention" which makes this sound like a puff piece. The awards section can be clipped, too, as they aren't even notable enough to merit their own articles.--Leflyman^Talk 05:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well seeing as his works are ground breaking in the sense that they changed the face of ENT surgery what wording do you feel would be more appropriate to describe his works? - Cormacalian 16:07 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• No such words at all; encyclopedic articles should not couch accomplishments as "changed the face of..." or "ground-breaking" (unless used as a gerund for actual ground being broken). If other surgeons are adopting techniques developed by this doctor, then that can be stated, but only with a verifiable source for such a claim.--Leflyman^Talk 19:01, 26 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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frisco Centennial High School

Aaargh. I don't think it's possible to clean this and leave much beyond "Frisco Centennial High School is a High School in Frisco", and so it must die. --Tagishsimon (talk)

• Delete. "Die" might be a little too strong, but this article exhibits no encyclopedic value, is full of POV statements, and in parts nonsensical. I may as well toss in that until there is an agreed policy on schools (WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, and the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, and schools are not inherently notable, and "precedent" is meaningless - we're not wikilawyers and stare decisis does not apply), each school article must be judged on its own merits. In the present case, I am of the opinion that this particular article, judged on its own merits, does not meet the criteria of WP:NOT. Agent 86 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I cleaned up the article (this involved getting rid of all but a paragraph), and according to overwhelmingly widespread precedent, high schools are inherently notable. If we should look at each case separately, then the fact that a couple thousand of students attend is enough. AdamBiswanger1 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But why did you have to delete this nugget: In the northern suburb of Dallas, TX off of 121 go to www.friscoisd.org and there choose 6-12th schools to click on Centennial High School "Home of the fighting Titan"? The one school where you have to travel to location before you can access their web presence is surely notable. Hence, Keep No vote. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Huh? I read it 3 times and I still don't get it. AdamBiswanger1 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• The one school where you have to travel to location before you can access their web presence is surely notable. Hence, Keep. <--- What??? Wickethewok 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Does it help if I just quote the first part? In the northern suburb of Dallas, TX off of 121 go to www.friscoisd.org. In any case, good opportunity to withdraw my vote per below. ~ trialsanderrors 16:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per my caving long ago on fighting school articles. The cleanup works. Teke 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has redeeming quality. Not our proudest spot, but good enough American Patriot 1776 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per general precedent that high schools are notable. BryanG^(talk) 04:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, fine, if we're going to argue this precedent doesn't exist (which I dispute), I'll present some arguments for keeping:

1. While the number of college graduates is increasing, there are still a lot of people in the US whose highest level of education was their local high school. We have articles about colleges, so why not high schools too?
2. This is an expandable stub article. Sure, it doesn't present a lot of information right now, but sooner or later someone may expand it.
3. m:Wiki is not paper. We're not a traditional encycolpedia, we have the room to cover high schools.
4. Notability for this article: Frisco, Texas has experienced massive population growth in the last few years, this school was built because of that and is already over-capacity to the point where two more are being built. Not the strongest argument, but it's good enough for me.
5. I personally don't like requirements for notability such as "notable alumni", if for no other reason than it would confuse new editors who want to know why their school article is being deleted if those other ones can stay. Also, newer high schools like this one will obviously have troube meeting this sort of requirement.

I doubt this will convince anyone whose mind is already made up on the school debate, but at least it's better than citing precedent. BryanG^(talk) 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep High School. In nominating schools, perhaps you may wish to refer to SchoolWatch. Jammo (SM247) 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The formation of a wikiproject does not confer notability. --Coredesat 20:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per repetetive precedent. --Rob 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Repetition does not make it notable or encyclopedic. 50,000 Elvis fans can be wrong. Agent 86 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • But it does make these nominations a total waste of time. Do you want Wikipedians to engage in totally pointless rows that create bad feeling, or would you rather see them spend their time improving Wikipedia? CalJW 15:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Debate is healty... even if at the end the status quo is maintened. If it is such a waste of your time, stop participating in school AfD discussions Cal.--Isotope23 01:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, contrary to repeated erroneous claims, there are no precedents for automatic "Keep" votes/comments on schools. There have been arguments for and against (See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)/Arguments... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents) and votes often end up with no consensus. Quite apart from that, in my view schools have no "inherent notability"... and this one has neither demonstrated notability, nor have I found any proof that it has any. - Motor(talk) 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability nuggets: The school was created to satisfy the increasing population in the area, and 2100 students spend their days there. That's more than Bryn Mawr College. Considering the number of High school in America, and the number of school-spirited kids makingn articles, it's pretty much a futile effort to fight back. Not that I'm defeatist or apathetic, but combined with the fact that the article is borderline notable, it results in a keep. AdamBiswanger1 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A high school does not become notable just because it has 2100 students. My high school had 1900 students when I graduated from it, and it's not worthy of note. I would vote to delete even it. --Coredesat 06:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not every school has inherent notability. If it's noteworthy in any way (besides the fact that it exists), I'll change my mind. --Coredesat 11:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- agree with Coredesat, excellent comment -- MrDolomite 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It is not my belief that high schools are inherently notable. They should have done something at least, like had a notable alumnus or been featured in press stories. We really need to come up with a working set of guidelines for this already... Wickethewok 14:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Far too much time has been wasted on that already and it would be a terrible idea to start it all over again. As I have been saying for a year, the only guideline that will ever work is keep all schools. CalJW 15:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — It is my belief that most High Schools are notable. This debate will persist ad infinitum, and I've seen little reason to favor a delete for a properly-formed H.S. page. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, ad infinitum is right. The only things that will survive a total global nuclear war: cockroachs, rats, and AfD school notability debates.--Isotope23 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• So you think userbox debates will be eliminated during a global nuclear war. Sounds like someone has taken a bite from the Optimistic Orange. joturner 06:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. User:Motor is correct in pointing out that there is no "automatic keep" rule for schools (I'm still not sure why people invoke Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools as constituting an "automatic keep" / "inherently notable" rule, but that's neither here nor there). Certainly, there are notable schools, which should (and do) have articles. However, this does not mean that every school should have an article ... only the notable ones. After all, there are notable -authors- who should (and do) have articles, but we delete the nonnotable ones all the time, etc. etc. Anyway, the only suggestion of notability that occurs in this article is in reference to the school's size (student population of ~2,100). OK, my local McDonalds gets more than 2,100 customers a day -- does that mean it should have a page, too? Of course not. Anyway, if this school actually becomes notable (and the article makes the case for it), I'll be the first to change my vote. Best, Docether 19:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment staying out of it from a keep/delete standpoint, but I still have yet to see a convincing, logical argument establishing how schools are more "notable" than a local Wal-Mart.--Isotope23 19:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• That is not true. The argument has been made, and you don't agree with it. Alright, that's your choice, but the way the school deletionists treat inclusionist arguments with dismissive contempt is one of the main reasons I am so resolved to stand up to them until we have an article about every school. CalJW 15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, yes, well, you are accusing nominators of bad faith because they disagree with your "argument" (see below)?
• If you have a logical argument that effectively shows how a school is more notable than a Walmart, I'd love to see it CalJW. This isn't dismissive contempt, I have just have never seen anyone make a convincing argument. Pop a link to the discussion on my talk page.--Isotope23 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. All high schools are notable. Carioca 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification. I'm interested in your reasoning. Please explain further. -- Docether 19:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Please do not ask other users to waste their time in that fashion. CalJW 15:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please assume good faith, CalJW. Best, -- Docether 13:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - High schools should be kept. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable for reasons which have been debated ad infinitum and are clearly articulated at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep (which is not a policy). Silensor 20:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, and which are clearly refuted by Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete (which is not a policy either). - Motor (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Fortunately, Wikipedia is scalable enough that we do not have to all agree on what is and isn't notable. Otherwise, who knows, someone might start deleting articles about real towns, population: 8. Silensor 20:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, I was hoping you might make an argument why *this* particular school is notable. Has it done something to make it stand out from the thousands of others. Arguments about "inherent notability" as well as citing non-existent precendents are just, well, hand-waving. - Motor (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per precedent. I think it would be difficult (if not impossible) to develop a good notability test for schools. District size? Budget? Attendance? Year established? Sports achievements? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a simple one: When it creates non-local news. ~ trialsanderrors 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A nice start. I think it must live. --JJay 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per silensor.  ALKIVAR™ 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete There is absoultely no claim to notability, it is just a recently established school. Unless something can be placed upon here to prove that the school is important, then keep this. However, there is no stressing of importance. I see no reason to let this article survive. Yanksox ^(talk) 06:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, There's really no good reason to delete this article. High school asserts notability by presence in notable location, size of school body, and community involvement in school founding. Alphachimp ^talk 06:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Where in the article is this notability asserted? --Coredesat 07:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In the words "high school". CalJW 15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Unless I've suddenly forgotten how to read... I don't think that's correct. - Motor (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nominations of high schools by experienced editors should be treated as disruption to make a point. CalJW 15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, on what grounds? - Motor (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, This debate is very similar to another going on here. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I concur that die was an interesting word of choice; after all, this isn't Wikipedia:Articles sentenced to death (although perhaps it should be). I will however, copy what I said in regards to another high school for deletion.

• It is not true that all high schools are notable. Stuyvesant High School is notable for its nationally (and dare I say internationally?) acclaimed educational programs, the impact of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the school (due to its proximity to the World Trade Center), and its numerous well-known alumni. Kofi Annan spoke at the school's 2004 graduation and many of the students reflections of 9|11 were featured in a November 2001 issue of The New York Times. With an average SAT score of over 1400 (from the old 1600), Stuyvesant offers eleven foreign languages and math and science courses that rival some colleges. Now, for Frisco Centennial High School? Well... it's... uh... in Frisco... and.. uh... it has a website. Nothing special.

• That's my position and I'm sticking to it. joturner 06:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Joturner; not all high schools are notable. Carlossuarez46 06:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yanksox; being one of the newest schools in Texas, the 2nd one in Frsico and having a Titan as a mascot appear to fall rather short of establishing the importance of this school to anyone outwith the immediate area. When there's a Friscopedia, this will be just the sort of thing they want. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - another school which is too new to claim notabilty --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, secondary level educational institutions and above are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 22:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor and others above. --Myles Long 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BryanG's reason #1... It's good to see someone actually advance a reason why this should be retained.--Isotope23 12:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• no vote Just noting that I have observed this AFD Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  Is this some type of new Wiki-graffiti I don't know about? "Hipocrite was here."  ;-) Silensor 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  No. I have voted keep on every school I have come across prior. I chose not to do so here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'm opining Keep and Hipocrite is abstaining? I welcome you all to the Twilight Zone...--Isotope23 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per BryanG's comments. I see no point in deleting highschool articles at all. If Wikipedia hs room to archive all the infinite discussions with anon trolls, I don't see why it wouldn't have room for schools. This page does not act as a self-promotion or as personal webspace - it serves no harm.--Konstable 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, most schools are notable. bbx 06:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no policy that says most schools are notable. Why does this wiki need to try and duplicate a site that will probably always do a better job on schools? If a notabillty criteria is a new school being at capacity in three years, we really need to think about what we are doing here. That is clearly not in any way notable. The norm in other areas of the country is to be a capacity, or higher, in a year or two. Vegaswikian 23:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems sufficently notable. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:37, 29 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 wasSpeedy delete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buckeye (cat)

An article for the cat of someone who is not notable. Maybe even a speedy delete? Ltbarcly 02:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and bury in the litterbox. BuckRose 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps Speedy, since it doesn't seem to make any (reasonable) claim of notability. Would a cat qualify under A7? Peyna 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Easiest delete of my life AdamBiswanger1 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Who doesn't want to know about the most famous cat in Christian music? --Alphachimp ^talk 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speediest Delete. Take this horrible article out of here now!!!! Since it has already been taken by the AntiWikipedia as one of their own. BrandNew21 06:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails CSD:A7. --Coredesat 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If Buckeye has appeared in magazines with a substantial circulation he deserves to be here and given tuna fish for dinner. Potterseesall 07:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Said magazines don't even have wiki articles. A not interesting and not relevant appearance in them gets ... you guessed it! Deleted! - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. If it's people I would say it's CSD A7... but cat? I am not so sure... --WinHunter ^(talk) 09:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete or just Delete Cutesy article about the pet of a member of a pretty-notable band. There's a strong consensus that, generally speaking, family members of notable people aren't notable by association. There's even less reason to think their pets would be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- should be gone faster than it took to comment on it -- MrDolomite 14:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yeah, hardly famous or notable. -- Steel 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Lenahan. -- Docether 19:04, 23 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Cunningham

This article is a joke vanity page I created. I repent! Ltbarcly 02:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, I'll Speedy Delete it. You are forgiven. AdamBiswanger1 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. He was born in 1981 and apart from a midi there was no evidence of notability nor an assertion of such. Capitalistroadster 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close, article has been deleted. --Coredesat 07:46, 23 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 03:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Park Tower

No context, no clue what it's about. Though it is in Singapore. Which is nice. --Tagishsimon (talk)

• Comment I think he's talking about this, or possibly this AdamBiswanger1 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You sure it's not near Central Park in NYC? It did list an address on Church St., which is in Manhattan Either way, the article makes no assertion of notability. --Alphachimp ^talk 06:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable location. --Coredesat 07:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as above -- MrDolomite 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Inner Earth 16:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:48, 23 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 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman: Animated Adventures

Apparent Hoax Article, No Reference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by taniwha (talk • contribs) .

• Delete My google adventures lead me to no evidence of such a show. AdamBiswanger1 03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Since it has yet to come, or is never going to, i suggest we delete it and wait to see if its real.Zhukov 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT --Alphachimp ^talk 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat 07:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete I suspect this is simply an extension of the internet hoax that stemmed from a completed sketch/character design of Superman that was created by the artist of 'The Batman Strikes' as a joke for online fans.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.171.123 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete -- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- MrDolomite 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete content and redirect to Superman: The Animated Series as I have seen that show referred to as the Animated Adventures. It would also discourage recreation. 23skidoo 22:06, 23 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 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic stochastic economics

"Things get very complicated very quickly in economic theory." This article may have something to do with Dynamic stochastic economics or it may not. We may never know. --Tagishsimon (talk)

• Delete. Perhaps this AfD will attract the attention of someone who knows enough about this theory to make the article comprehensible. If that happens, I'd probably vote keep. However, since the article has been around for a year in its current state, I'm very much doubting that will happen. Peyna 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peyna AdamBiswanger1 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You have to admit, "Things get very complicated very quickly in economic theory." is profound. Teke 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was blown away at first. Sometimes when you read something like that you just need to sit down and digest it for a while. AdamBiswanger1 04:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Though the article may die, the begining will forever live on in the archive of my userspace, as I made it my Quote of the Week. Teke 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete That quote is positively brilliant. If somebody knowledgeable came around and wrote an explanation in the article, I too would probably change my vote to keep. --Alphachimp ^talk 06:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have to admit I prefer the bare-bones first version before someone felt the obligation to explain this to humans. Uh, Delete. Should be speedied because no notability is asserted, but maybe someone can milk this for something marginally useful in the next week. ~ trialsanderrors 06:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:V...and this might be speedy material (no context?). --Coredesat 07:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete It appears the editor is referring to Stochastic programming optimization in economics, and can typeset formulae, but can't be bothered to expain anything. Article seems deliberately obfuscatory. Pete.Hurd 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete. It's possible the formula means something, but I doubt it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:21, 24 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 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Access Democracy Canada

I can find no notability whatever for this outside of the site itself, and a few random blog and link entries, usually by John Oprea, the site's creator. No indication of any membership or coverage at all. David Oberst 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete David Oberst 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nom. Only 852 ghits[11], mostly leading to the results mentioned by Oberst. Admitted failure to even remotely qualify for registration with Elections Canada and not being able to field more than one candidate (even "unofficially") gives credence to this nomination. Agent 86 03:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn AdamBiswanger1 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Alphachimp ^talk 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 07:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete -- agree with Maxwell Smart above, good research -- MrDolomite 14:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not even registered as an official party, no sign of any kind of grassroot support. Pascal.Tesson 22:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. The party technically does not exist. Richardcavell 23:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd also suggest to the closing admin that we delete, rather than redirect, Direct Access Democracy and Direct Access Democracy Canada. - Richardcavell 23:50, 27 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 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Owtsiders 2002

It looks completly garage bandish, and has only 55 Google hits with almost none of them relevent. Falls under WP:MUSIC. American Patriot 1776 04:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. --Alphachimp ^talk 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. --Coredesat 07:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have added ProD to The Owtsiders and one other album of them before I saw this AfD, and will add a ProD to their third album as well if needed. All three albums are self-released. Fram 09:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, should the result be delete, the pics should be deleted too. American Patriot 1776 16:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- not notable -- MrDolomite 14:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A self-produced album by a university club. My high school music teacher made very professional CDs of our concerts too, but you will not find those on wikipeida. Fails WP:MUSIC. Indrian 20:37, 23 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 per overwhelming and unanimous discussion, and WP:SNOW. FCYTravis 02:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawtons

Advertisement for non-notable company. Naconkantari 04:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Drugstore chains are often notable, and several already have articles in Wikipedia. This one is located in Atlantic Canada, and is the proverbial large fish in a small pon. The edit history with multiple reverts is rather depressing, but I think the chain is notable. TruthbringerToronto 05:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see why this should be deleted. Should we delete every article about a business because it might be considered an "advertisement"? 59 stores is notable enough. The article seems NPOV to me in its current form, so not an advertisement. This afd proposal puzzles me. --Jacknstock 06:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It has 59 locations. It's gotta have some degree of notability. --Alphachimp ^talk 06:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this seems to be notable enough, and this doesn't read like an advertisement. --Coredesat 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the big drug store chains in Atlantic Canada. All of the major competing chains (Pharmasave, Shoppers Drug Mart, Jean Coutu Group, Guardian Drug Stores) have articles too. Kirjtc2 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If this was a drugstore based in New York State or Ontario we wouldn't be having this discussion. BoojiBoy 13:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I agree with your statement 100% --Pat 20:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mild Keep -- has NPOV, needs expanding -- MrDolomite 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- not an adverstisement. The article is factual and dispassionate. Ground Zero | t 16:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; regional retail chains with dozens of locations are notable enough. Bearcat 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- not an adverstisement. The article is factual and dispassionate--Pat 20:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to only have been put up for deletion because of admin hate for a disgruntled user --ZakuSage 22:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm on the opposite side of the continent from this region, and I've heard of this chain. However, that's not a criterion that counts, but WP:CORP does, and this article meets the test. Agent 86 21:44, 23 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. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Convenience

Advertisement for non-notable company. Naconkantari 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: notable Eastern Canada convenience store chain -- Samir धर्म 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: notable Eastern Canada convenience store chain -- --Vic 05:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Chains of convenience stores are often notable. 7-Eleven has its own category at Category:7-Eleven and several other convenience stores chains already have articles in Wikipedia. This one is located in Atlantic Canada. Convenience stores aren't fun places to work, but they do employ a lot of people, and if a chain is big enough or distinctive enough, it's notable. TruthbringerToronto 05:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable per WP:BUSINESS --Alphachimp ^talk 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and by that I mean per WP:CORP --Alphachimp ^talk 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but from all I can tell Needs is not even a corporation at all & doesn't even have their own website (or at least I couldn't find one). Otoh the Sobeys website tells me that Needs is a franchise brand of Sobeys. So how does this meet WP:CORP? ~ trialsanderrors 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Why do we have Sleep Inn when it's a part of Choice Hotels? Why do we have Buick when it's a part of General Motors? It's owned by Sobeys but is not connected with them, they are two separate franchises under one corporate ownership. BoojiBoy 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
        • T&E:FEQ Buick is long enough to be spun out from GM just for length alone. This one is a fopping three-liner. ~ trialsanderrors 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Buick->GM was a reductio ad absurdum, not a false equivalent. Sleep Inn is closer to a proper analogy. A notable chain owned by another, larger notable chain is still notable. BoojiBoy 21:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Buick->GM was a reductio ad absurdum Uh, No. And whether Sleep Inn will survive an AfD/Merge nomination is another question. Reads a bit like copyvio. Not exactly what we strive for. ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, I didn't really read the article so it may be a copyvio. And it's interesting that you just say "Uh, No" rather than responding. Perhaps you might wish to read the reductio ad absurdum article so you understand the point I was making? BoojiBoy 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
                • I know RAA well enough. I gave two conditions on why I don't think Needs should have its own entry. I don't even have to check whether Buick has its own webpage or not, or whether it passes the criterion for independent news coverage. ~ trialsanderrors 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Buick does have an article >--Pat 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A chain of 143 franchises is notable enough. --Jacknstock 06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Sobeys. Newfiecruft. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. --Coredesat 07:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a major convenience store chain in this part of the world. And I'm not biased since I used to work there (thank heavens I don't anymore). Kirjtc2 11:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They're all over Atlantic Canada, passes WP:CORP easily. BoojiBoy 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable, needs expanding -- MrDolomite 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not an advertisement in any way. The article is factual and dispassionate. Ground Zero | t 16:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going with the keep side; regional retail chains with 150 locations are notable enough. Bearcat 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThey have an article on Mac's Convenience Stores why not needs ? --Pat 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Expansion is needed, however --ZakuSage 22:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's not notable. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 22:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is thats because its not in the USA ? --Pat 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Expansion is needed, however --Vic 14:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AFD is not a vote, there's no reason to "vote" twice. BoojiBoy 14:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable in Atlantic Canada. Expansion is needed. --FrankCostanza 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable in Atlantic Canada its the same as Macs and 7 -11 why does someone thinks it needs to be deleted because its not in Ontario ?. Expansion is needed --JO 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Chains of convenience stores are often notable. 7-Eleven has its own category at Category:7-Eleven and several other convenience stores chains already have articles in Wikipedia. This one is located in Atlantic Canada. Convenience stores aren't fun places to work, but they do employ a lot of people, and if a chain is big enough or distinctive enough, it's notable . Why is this going to be deleted is it because its not big enough or is it mainly in Atlantic Canada--Bill poster 21:22, 26 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. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 09:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christ!

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

non-notability, POV Interlingua ^talk 04:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Band seems to have gone out of its way to make sure we can't verify its notability; oh well. Melchoir 04:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Where's the proof that "War To The Rhythm of W.H. Auden" is so popular [12]? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I subscribe to the punk and indie mp3 newgroups and their album is requested periodically. I won't say I have seen it a lot, but I have seen it requested maybe four times in the past year, which is more than quite a few other request numbers - their song War To The Rhythm of W.H.Auden is the only one I have ever seen requested as a single song, so there may be SOME truth to the claim of popularity, I don't knowloveandearth

Comment I had already tagged two albums from this group with "speedy delete" but then was unsure if I should do that with the band itself, or whether I should tag it for an AfD discussion. The albums were Will We Always Be Blind Idiots? and...hmm, I can't find the 2nd album. Neither album gave any indication of "importance or significane", which seemed to merit a Speedy Delete. The article for the band, however, comes closer to asserting such importance, so I hestitated about how to tag it. It's an assertion that I don't happen to believe is consistent with WP:BAND. If anyone in the comments could give me guidance about what I've done right/wrong, I would appreciate that.Interlingua ^talk 04:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the band article did claim notability it's best to take the safe route and list for AfD. The albums themselves claimed no notability, so they were game for speedy. In other words, you done right. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thanks. That's what I guessed based on prior discussions here, but I wasn't sure. Interlingua ^talk 14:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This person's comment can't be possible - the Chicago band Christ! has only ever had one album, a live album that came out some months ago (can't be sure - maybe January or February). They have been playing for years but I think seemed adverse to releasing material until someone recorded a live concert for them [User: Loveandearth This person's comment can't be possible - the Chicago band Christ! has only ever had one album, a live album that came out some months ago (can't be sure - maybe January or February). They have been playing for years but I think seemed adverse to releasing material until someone recorded a live concert for them.

Well I agree with the earlier opinion. From a musical standpoint, Christ! is probably not a groundbreaking band, though as it turns up for almost every political demonstration in Chicago and hands out cool flyers with socialist messages written like poems it has certainly been a felt presence in Chicago culture. I think Christ! is better known for its unusual way of distributing music by handing out its CDs to people for free on the streets. Who in Chicago hasn't seen them handing out CDs in Wicker Park or at music festivals or outside the Chicago Metro when fans are lining up to see a punk band especially? So this band should not be listed if musical merit is a consideration, but for its influence alone upon the Chicago music scene it should surely merit some listing, no? Not sure I know the Wikipedia procedures enough on that matter to make a further opinion loveandearth

• Speedy Delete per WP:BAND --Alphachimp ^talk 06:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "War To The Rhythm of W.H. Auden" was downloaded five times at my space. Maybe that was a personal best? Their own website doesn't mention the song - though I bailed on it after wading through several frustrating minutes of drivel. --DaveG12345 07:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per {{db-band}}, woefully fails WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:V. --Coredesat 07:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think a cursory viewing of their myspace is a good way to judge their popularity as it appears to be a brand-new site. So far they seem to have two very well-known musicians as friends, though, Crass and Patrik Fitzgerald! So they certainly seem to be starting on a good footing! The prior statement that their own website doesn't mention the song does not appear true. When I last visited the site their entire album was available for free, which is their policy. They are an official non-profit organization in Illinois, I believe, or used to be, though I did not verify that recently (but I did half a year ago when I first heard their CD). User:loveandearth

• • Comment I tried a cursory view of the Wikipedia article first, and learned there that one of their songs had been a notably popular download. I went in search of hard evidence, since the article offered none. All I found was myspace. When I last visited the band website, this morning, I had to click through page after page of cartoon nonsense and found no songs before becoming too irritated to proceed. WP:MUSIC is still the problem here, there's so little evidence to go on. Perhaps a verifiable article that described the Southside scene as a whole, of which this band were a part, would be a better start? --DaveG12345 16:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How come these voters can't find the songs, when they are clearly freely available on the site at http://www.christtheband.com/solo.htm (then click Back To Christ! button - this seems quickest way that avoids their admittedly long cartoon). Their songs are all listed on that album page. This album has been freely available for half a year and is still there. loveandearth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.2.85 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:Music. Surprised that this isn't a {{db-band}} candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After reading the website (which may be one of the worst websites I have ever seen) and seeing nothing that accurately asserts the band's notability, I have changed my vote to speedy delete. I think it is a {{db-band}} candidate. --Coredesat 09:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Now tagged as {{db-band}}.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I removed the speedy deletion tag. It has an assertion of notability, even if a false one. We cannot speedy delete hoaxes, nor can we speedy things for not meeting WP:BAND; we can only speedy articles on individuals or grouops with "no assertion of notability." See WP:CSD. -- SCZenz 11:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thanks. That's what I guessed based on prior discussions here, but I wasn't sure. Interlingua ^talk 14:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment, well, my vote looks somewhat weird now, but I went ahead and changed my vote back to delete, if this can't be speedied. --Coredesat 11:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above; non-notable and unverifiable. -- SCZenz 11:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- per SCZenz above -- MrDolomite 14:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll stay out of this debate. But I was sure happy to see Christ! mentioned in this encyclopedia when I visited it this morning and was sad to see it was going to be deleted! This band is so mysterious and tries so hard to maintain secrecy, that seeing it listed was a nice surprise. They turn up at political demonstrations wearing colorful and weird clothes and passing out hopeful messages to the public, as they do with their music. I think they do deserve at least a mention, especially as the CD is such a good one. It is probably one of the best punk CDs I have ever heard, easily as good as Crass or the Buzzcocks or the Clash. So visionary and catchy. It certainly deserves at least a mention in my view. But I'll leave the vote to the rest of you, as I simply wanted to leave my opinion. I am not an official voter, not sure how this wikipedia thing works... good luck!! User:loveandearth

Just found this article on Christ! that said it might be deleted. That would be a shame, in light of the contributions Christ! has made to punk music on the southside of Chicago (e.g., the birth of Discorporate Records, other free releases by bands such as Tras De Nada, and their inspiring politics). dannybyrd

• Comment As I noted above, a verifiable article on all of that, including Christ! as appropriate, sounds like the way to go to me, though it would need a carefully chosen "umbrella" title. --DaveG12345 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am following this debate, but it seems sad that Christ! can't have its own entry, given its musically brilliant CD. I am wondering if the name is turning people off, given voters' possible religious orientations. I think this entry is getting short shrift (e.g., one voter claming he can't find the music when it is patently there on their website, or one person describing their opening cartoon on their website as "drivel" - his bias clearly, nothing to do with the merits of whether or not Christ! should have an entry in the encyclopedia!). This band is admittedly a band that only locals in Chicago or those downloading their anti-Iraq War song (or listening to it at anti-war demos) know about, but given the significant artistic merits of their album Will We Always Be Blind Idiots? why does that matter? They obviously exist, they obviously produce excellent music, so why shouldn't those listening to the songs online and wondering about them not have the opportunity to find out a little more about them and their tradition and politics in the encyclopedia? I have seen far lesser bands on Wikipedia (though I won't argue they shouldn't be there - if the entires inform the public about their music, that seems to me one valid purpose of a modern online encyclopedia). I vote APPROVE!!dannybyrd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.2.85 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I went in search of verifiable evidence to back up the article's unreferenced claims. I found nothing on the song mentioned. The website was, in my opinion, very very poor. I found no songs. The article therefore, for me, failed WP:V, and WP:MUSIC too. The only thing that caused my Delete vote was lack of any verifiable evidence. I do not have all day to look for evidence of one band's claimed notability I'm afraid. I certainly don't get rattled by a band's name.

• And there is no reason Christ! could not rise again. But it would have to be with verifiable content. Then no one will have to dredge the net for reasons to keep the article. It will all be there, right on the page. I even suggested a starting-point - build something on the scene as a whole, and spin off individual band articles as they grow and gain their own identity. That's generally how things work round here, from what I've observed. I hope you choose to work on it, and I wish you good luck. --DaveG12345 18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. Even their supporter(s) in this discussion have made no claim for _notability_ outside the Chicago area. Tevildo 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Supporters, please read WP:MUSIC to learn what is considered a notable band here. TomTheHand 20:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note on finding no songs. Yes there is a long cartoon but after that, songs. To bypass the cartoon, just go to

http://www.christtheband.com/solo.htm

and then click Back to Christ! on the bottom left. I suppose the band is not deemed notable, as you stated. Besides the local papers, some punk websites and punk station DJs reviewing the album very favorably, I cannot think of anything else that would make the band notable in light of their refusal to be signed or sold. Anyway, interesting following this discussion. I like the band but am not a follower, exactly. If I ever see them in the neighborhood, I'll let them know what transpired these last few days on this site! loveandearth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.249.202.72 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ^{23 June 2006 23:45} Ste4k wrote: Fails WP:VER.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 09:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heilkunst

In AfD of previous article on this subject, subject was held to be nonnotable. JamesMLane t c 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (nominator). The discussion in the decision to delete a previous article on this subject showed that Heilkunst is a viewpoint about homeopathy that's apparently taught at only one school. It's not even "mainstream" homeopathy. Because this article is different from the deleted one, though, it's not a substantial re-creation, so it seemed inappropriate for a speedy. JamesMLane t c 04:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just nonsense. --Alphachimp ^talk 06:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Not patent nonsense, just nonsense. --Coredesat 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as above -- MrDolomite 14:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ^{24 June 2006 00:01} Ste4k wrote: Topic matter is unverifiable having no reliable published source per Item 6.3

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 10:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NUS High Gavel Club

Apparently a non-notable club. Very few, if any, results on Google. Kalani ^[talk] 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN --Alphachimp ^talk 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete highly NN - clubs within schools as a general rule have no notability. Any noteworthy accolades or fame can usually be attributed to the school itself, if there is an article for it. Jammo (SM247) 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, high school clubs aren't notable. --Coredesat 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Lemonsawdust 08:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- HS clubs aren't notable -- MrDolomite 14:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge summary with NUS High School of Mathematics and Science, as student clubs/CCAs are not notable just by themselves. Advanced 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. - Advanced 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable club. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 04:31, 24 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casey James

Subject is non-notable and nothing in the article states why she is notable for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Would be a CSD A7 had it not been for the fact that it was previously (and inappropriately) nominated previously. Therefore, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 04:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, while I don't approve of the article (on the same grounds as the previous nomination), I feel the previous position on deletion should hold. Notability is asserted by the particular movie. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PORN_BIO. And compulsory lessons on correct use of the semi-colon for article creator. -- GWO
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat 07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gareth Owen and Coredesat. DarthVader 08:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I wasn't sure at first, but was swayed by the fact that this was previously nominated previously ;) Grutness...wha? 09:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not very prolific or been in anything overly popular it would be appear. Wickethewok 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She's been around for about 15 years and is more notable than a lot of folks listed in the "List of big-busted porn stars" or whatever it's called. WP:PORN is not official policy nor is it even considered an official guideline yet. 23skidoo 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - needs some try at referencing from reliable secondary sources. snug 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia does not ignore the porn industry. The industry and its more conspicuous performers are, by long-established precedent, considered notable. This particular performer has ample screen credits. Moreover, her physical attributes perhaps count as two arguments :) in favor of notability, in the same way that a List of the world's tallest people would be notable. Community members should be careful not to label things as nonnotable just because they personally find them of interest. If that were acceptable, we would have rather fewer articles on Byzantine history. Eastmain 04:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We are not ignoring the porn industry and Wikipedia itself has many articles on porn stars. (Just take a look at Category:Porn stars.) Also, physical attributes should never be a sole factor in determining notability, as beauty and ugliness are not NPOV, but a matter of perception. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 23:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 23skidoo. Oddly enough, the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey James was a near unanimous keep, what has changed? Yamaguchi先生 06:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read more into that discussion. The only reason the article was kept was because the nomination was inappropriately made. Basically it was felt that the nominator was merely trolling and the criteria for the then-VfD was invalid. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey James, and because the subject is notable. bbx 07:06, 29 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. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Monson

No assertion of notability. Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROFTEST guidelines. Medtopic 04:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:PROFTEST --Alphachimp ^talk 05:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• If folk music as a physics class isn't notable then I don't know what is notable. Delete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:PROFTEST. --Coredesat 07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yeah, definitely nn. -- Steel 18:57, 23 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. Robert 14:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Sauer

Look like a non-notable vanity article about a kid who happens to be a member of a Christian rock band. I don't know, maybe the band is notable or something, but it has a very common name (Common Thread) so its hard to tell. GabrielF 04:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:BAND does this mean I can make an article about myself too? --Alphachimp ^talk 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, here is your boy's website, first story is about their first recording session, which was... last weekend! Aw bless. Hope Jessica got to see it first... --DaveG12345 06:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD:A7. Viridae 09:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD:A7. --Coredesat 11:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- personal vanispam. C'mon back when you make it big -- MrDolomite 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - insufficient effort at secondary source verifiability. snug 00:37, 24 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. Robert 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kapp memorial library,cincinnati

Notability of library not asserted, on 28 google hits (mostly address information and wikipedia) -- Koffieyahoo 05:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:NOT --Alphachimp ^talk 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is an ad (just look at the source). Not notable, and falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of info. --Coredesat 07:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not even sure if I could support an article for Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute [13] as it appears not notable also -- MrDolomite 14:36, 23 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Staffeld-Coit

No assertion of notability. Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROFTEST. Medtopic 05:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She doesn't appear to be a prof, but there is still no assertion in accordance with WP:NN Alphachimp ^talk 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alphachimp. --Coredesat 07:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 08:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- sorry, not notable -- MrDolomite 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- could be above my notability threshold, but the article makes no case. Some reputable secondary sources, or, some research papers could change my mind. snug 18:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Transplant doctors are rare. Some research papers have been added to the article under "Recent publications". TruthbringerToronto 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know how many there are, but there are at least 944 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons whose name contains the letter "a"; I typed in "a" on their Member Search page: [14]. I think the question is whether or not this physician is a notable transplant surgeon? I searched pubmed and found only two articles (the same two you added) containing her name: [15]. This is actually quite paltry for someone in academia. -Medtopic 19:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Additional note: It appears she is in private practice, not in academia: [16].) -Medtopic 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete transplant doctors are not that rare. Wikipedia is not a directory for anything Bwithh 01:41, 25 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. Robert 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaime D'Vette

all google hits on both the name and his solo album are from wikipedia -- Koffieyahoo 05:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another artist using wikipedia to promote himself. See WP:BAND and the following quote "where he's slowly building a following". Right. Build it off of WP. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. His name also appears on Jezebel (Bible), referring to a song of his with that name under "popular culture" (which his music obviously isn't yet), so he seems to be using Wikipedia to gain fame and interest in himself — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 06:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently Koffieyahoo took care of that already. Google cache misled me. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. --Coredesat 08:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Charlesknight 13:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- make it big, then we'll talk -- MrDolomite 14:37, 23 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 with Ferret, even a lot of the delete votes were saying "Delete or merge", so the consensus seems pretty strong for a merge. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel with ferrets

No encyclopaedic value. Wikipedia is neither a source of airline policies nor a pet care manual. Salvageable material can be merged with Ferret. Exploding Boy 05:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Ferret --Alphachimp ^talk 05:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a ferret guide. Jammo (SM247) 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Ferret per nom. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 06:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into Ferret JeffStickney
  • Would you mind explaining your rationale for keeping? What policy are you basing that vote on? Exploding Boy 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • From WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia-"After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic" The fact that some airlines have restrictions on ferrets , and some countries have laws about travelling with ferrets is every bit as encyclopedic as the Ferret article's listing of which states outlaw ferrets. The length of the ferret article justifies the split. JeffStickney
      • Also from WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I don't think this deserves an article on its own. Why not add a section to the Ferret page which states that transporting ferrets between countries may be restricted. Wiki doesnt need to list which of the worlds airlines allow ferrets and which dont. Let anyone who wants to know contact the customs of the country they wish to go to and the airline with which they want to travel. Vote below. Viridae 09:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The fact that someone planning a trip would have to call customs and ALL the major airlines and spend hours on hold just to find out this information means that it is useful information to some people, and it is information that people would have an interest in looking up. As such it is neither "cruft" nor "indiscriminate". Your argument is that it does not belong here because someone can get the same information by spending a day on the telephone to various agencies. By the same argument NO ARTICLE would belong in Wikipedia because someone could get the same information by spending a day in a library. JeffStickney 20:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Ferret article isn't that long anyway, and nearly the entire thing is about pet ferrets. Exploding Boy 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rodentcruft ~ trialsanderrors 06:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ferrets are not rodentsJeffStickneyIf you are going to vote to delete an article- you should at least read the article first!JeffStickney 20:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a pet care manual. --Coredesat 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • • The WP:NOT article you linked to does not say that at all. If you are going to pretend to quote policy, quote the actual policy. Don't just make stuff up.JeffStickney 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename as something like Ferrets as pets and instate all current material at Ferret regarding 'ferrets as pets' at this topic, not just this stuff about travelling. If it's easier to Delete then Delete. Basing this on the fact Mouse has the spin-off Fancy mouse, which is basically just "mice as pets". (Yes I know ferrets are mammals not rodents... now) --DaveG12345 08:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not encylopedic. DarthVader 08:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• WP:DAFT and delete this mustelicruft. Grutness...wha? 09:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per nom. --WinHunter ^(talk) 09:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge A small part of it into Ferret and Delete the rest. Reasoning above. Viridae 09:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the good, Delete rest -- MrDolomite 14:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Certainly not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. Maybe ferretpedia... Wickethewok 14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - too thin to stand on its own. Ace of Risk 16:36, 23 June 2006

(UTC)

• Merge salvagable info into ferret, Delete this article. Not encyclopaedic. Advanced 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into ferret. --Musicpvm 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Not even sure how ferrets as pets could be considered anywhere close to being encyclopedic. Pascal.Tesson 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or move to Wikitravel. —Psychonaut 13:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that Wikitravel is not part of Wikimedia, and as the two have different licenses it is not appropriate to cut and paste or to move articles bstween the two. This article was originally a subsection of the Ferret article, and within the context of that article it made perfect sense. While I agree that the ferret article is long enough to warrant this being split off of it, and WP:NOT "wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" states that splitting articles is completely appropriate, it appears that this article is going to be shot down. If it is going to be deleted, then the contents could at least be moved back into the Ferret article, as this information would make sense and be useful within the context of that article. But honestly, most of the "delete" voters appear to be merely jumping on the bandwagon without having even bothered to read this article or the related Ferret article.JeffStickney 20:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • On what basis do you make that claim? Again, as stated above, the Ferret article is not to long to accomodate what little salvageable material there is in this article. Featured articles are often substantially longer. Exploding Boy 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The first comment appeared one minute after you had nominated the article for deletion. The "rodentcruft" comment showed absolutely no knowledge of ferrets which demonstrates that that person did not read the articles. The WP:DAFT vote showed that that person missed the point entirely. Even the person who was on my side but suggested a "ferrets as pets" article missed the point because the Ferret article is primarily about "ferrets as pets" (as a fully domesticated animal they are kept primarily as pets). None of these people got here from looking up information on ferrets. They saw the listing on "articles for deletion", took a quick glance at the article, and voted before bothering to find out what the article was about or the context in which it was written. Your nomination and your comments on the other hand were in good faith. The essential argument was that it should have remained a subsection of that article rather than being branched out into its own. My opinioon on that issue is that that would have worked either way. Wikipedia's policy is that branching out articles is completely acceptable. A personal style preference as to how long you feel an article should be, does not justify taking such a drastic step as calling in administrators to erase someone's article. As to the "cruft" and "not encyclopedic" arguments, I would say that this has a niche interest. Not everyone is interested in knowing this information, but some people-namely ferret owners- are. To those people it is useful information that they would have an interest in looking up. I have no interest in the characters of SpongeBob SquarePants, but that does not give me the right to try to have the article List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters erased. JeffStickney 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
        • • • Comment I lined out the comment that this article was nominated in good faith. The fact that the first deletion vote occured ONE MINUTE after the article was nominated is very fishy- especially when that user has "sox" as part of the name. I suspect puppetry.JeffStickney 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I nominated the article and then used a sockpuppet to stack the votes? I certainly hope not. Exploding Boy 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Comment I made the suggestion to rename. The very title of this article does, I'm afraid, make it seem a silly topic, and that doesn't help its survival chances. It also seems to fail the guideline that advises against articles about "extremely specific details which only a dedicated few care about" (see Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas). Reading the article, it became clear to me that this article has very limited growth prospects and should probably just be merged back to Ferret. Contrary to what you are suggesting, I did indeed read the both this and the Ferret article, and I assumed this article had been split from the main because the main one was becoming too large. I therefore looked for precedents in other animal/pet articles on Wikipedia that may help this article's case, because as a choice for splitting from a main article, this one is a bad one IMO. I felt the pets part of the Ferret article could very well gain its own article (there is precedent with Mouse/Fancy mouse), leaving behind details of "ferret the animal". I personally doubt that such an article would ever end up on AfD. I don't think this article has such a survival chance. You appear to hint that my suggestion was made in bad faith. Certainly is not the case. --DaveG12345 04:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously good info for our readers with ferrets. Also reflects airline policy. --JJay 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If any consideration is given to keeping, then do the suggested merge. WP is not a how to and this article seems to be exactly that, a how to. It also includes non encylopedic material best left on the travel providers web sites. Vegaswikian 23:25, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob the Builder's Backdoor pool

Igotsomeapples 06:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: CSD G1. (The speedy tag was removed and replaced with AfD. Why?!!) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  Also CSD G7 as it was nominated by the author. Just noticed that. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close, article has been speedy deleted. --Coredesat 08:01, 23 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubeus Stalker

WP:FICT Non-notable game character John Nagle 07:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

8 hits in Google; all are either from someone using that name as a username or derivatives of this Wikipedia article. Notability here is very low. The game, Solaris RPG Online, has, according to its Wikipedia article, 10 to 30 users. Yet it has multiple articles in Wikipedia. --John Nagle 07:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy delete per CSD:A7, fails WP:FICT. --Coredesat 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Since this is about a player character, A7 and BIO can apply in addition to FICT. Fails all of the above with flying colours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- per Starblind above -- MrDolomite 14:39, 23 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, this was already nominated for deletion about two months ago. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-04-27. The result of the discussion was keep (and possibly merge).

[edit] Jesus Christ as source of "A Course in Miracles"

Seems too much like a vanity article. Delete TheRingess 07:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note this article was previously nominated for deletion on April 27, 2006 with the result of Keep. Tyrenius 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• QUESTION: How many times can an article be nominated for deletion? As noted above, this article had already been nominated for deletion and was deemed fit to remain within Wikipedia's database. I had assumed that passing the deletion nomination once would mean that this article was fit to remain in the database. I feel like I'm trapped in an odd rerun here. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment ^{25 June 2006 04:36} Ste4k wrote: Please use the discussion pages for discussion or refer to the AfD for documentation. The Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion and the guide to deletion may help you understand why an article has been nominated.

I understand why the article has been nominated: prejudice and lack of understanding of the article's content, as well as lack of interest in understanding the article's content. -- Andrew Parodi 09:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Why vanity? Anyway, I've been working to improve it and oppose deleting it. There is, in fact, such a controversy. Gene Ward Smith 07:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems a well-cited piece spun off from an already long main article. It could use some editing/formatting work, but I see no grounds for deletion. --DaveG12345 07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and maybe change the title to something more neutral, e.g. Authorship of "A Course in Miracles". What's the vanity aspect? ~ trialsanderrors 09:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think the article could be moved. I suggest that instead of quotes, the title be given in italics. Gene Ward Smith 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree that another title would be preferable. -- Andrew Parodi 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There was a lot of discussion in the previous AfD less than 2 months ago, so I'm not sure what's changed since then. I suggest withdrawing nomination. Tyrenius 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree that the nomination should be withdrawn. If you read the original deletion nomination, you will see that the administrator who closed the voting noted that the quality of the page increased from the time it was nominated for deletion to the time the voting for deletion ended. The quality of the article has only improved since then. -- Andrew Parodi 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep compared to some of the vanity crap I come across this is great. It's obviously a hotbed of discussion and needs toning down here and there but it is well written and sourced. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Good NPOV article about a genuine controversy. The sort of thing that, IMO, we should encourage. Tevildo 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. How many times can an article be nominated for deletion? I thought the rule was nominated once, and if the consensus is keep, then you keep. If anything speaks for the need to keep this article, it is the fact that it is so continually controversial. Any article that has inspired so much debate, including two attempts at deletion, must be of value. -- Andrew Parodi 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete ^{24 June 2006 00:29} Ste4k wrote: Topic matter is unverifiable having no reliable published source per Item 6.3

• Comment The name of this article has changed, as well as the topic matter. This is no longer a discussion about an article which itself debates the credibility of claims about its author, but instead about the history of some book. Since the name of the article has changed, I advise that you also change the name of this AfD since it looks rather confusing. Thanks.

• Comment. The name of the article has been altered, with the words "Jesus Christ as Source" being replaced with "Authorship", though the topic matter has remained the same. Wikipedia allows for the changing of the names of articles, though the articles are recognized as sharing continuity with their previous names; this is why the article history lists all edits made while the article had a previous title. This is a discussion about the source of A Course In Miracles, a book that has sold over one million copies, been translated into over a dozen languages, and has generated many best selling books of interpretation. Whether the name of this deletion nomination request is changed or not does not change the fact that the article with its present title is the same article as it was when it had the previous title, and therefore this article has been nominated twice for deletion, a situation found by most editors on this page to be very unusual indeed (note the suggestions for "speedy keep"). While the article has certainly grown, it remains the same article and remains concerned with the same topic. You see, Wikipedia allows for editing, which often involves expansion and growth. In fact, expansion and growth is actually encouraged on Wikipedia. -- Andrew Parodi 10:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is not the place to be making lists of web sites which haven't any credibility. Please use the discussion areas, or the article itself to develop theories. All of these references you list here below fail WP:WEB. That in itself actually supports my point about Item 6.3 which is listed above for your reference and ease of use. Thanks.

• Comment This is not the place to be making inaccurate statements about websites belonging to the main protagonists in a controversy central to a book that has sold over one million copies, spawned thousands of study groups throughout the world [17], been translated into more than a dozen foreign languages [18], been the basis for several best selling books[19], is predicted to one day be as widely read as the Bible, and has been described by at least one scholar as the second most important book to be printed in the English language after the Bible (see "Journey without Distance" [20] for the source of that statement). Please use your own talk page for discussion of your own personal perspectives on spiritual matters. All of your claims that the sources listed below fail the WP:WEB are false. This does not in itself support your point Item 6.3 which is listed above for your reference and ease of use. Thanks. (In the future, please sign all of your edits with four tidles, such as follows.) Andrew Parodi 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Article contains TEN OUTSIDE SOURCES and is not "original research"

• Source 1: FACIM Outreach Question #97 wherein we find the quote: "Jesus is a symbol in our mind of the Atonement -- the correction for our delusional thought system of separation, sin and attack."

• Source 2: Article by Joe Jesseph, about Jesus' "symbolic" role in the Course (Mr. Jesseph is a former staff member of Foundation for A Course In Miracles.)

• Source 3: Who Wrote the Course? by Circle of Atonement

• Source 4: Circle of Atonement FAQ page, wherein the issue of Course authorship is addressed

• Source 5: Who Was the Jesus of History and Did He Write A Course in Miracles article by Circle of Atonement

• Source 6: "Jesus Not Author of A Course In Miracles" by Endeavor Academy

• Source 7: FACIM OUTREACH question #65 wherein we find the statement: "(It) is important for students of the Course not to confuse the voice Helen Schucman heard and identified as JesusÆ, with the Jesus of traditional Christianity, nor to associate it with any particular image in form. The Course uses the term Jesus and the Holy Spirit as symbols reflecting the part of the mind of the Sonship that holds the memory of God. They are not real persons...."

• Source 8: Absence from Felicity", Kenneth Wapnick's biography of Helen Schucman wherein we find the statement: " At first blush, and as the story of the scribing is usually told, it would seem as if the person of Jesus stood within Helen's mind with a microphone, dictating to her-word for word, in English!--the three books of the Course. It must be remembered, of course, that on one level this was Helen's experience. But similar to the misperception of the sun's rising and setting every day, one's experience , though valid for the individual, nonetheless, should not be taken for the actual truth, let alone as a model in form for other people's experience.".

• Source 9: Foundation for Inner Peace copyright statement regarding the rulings that resulted from the court case between FACIM and Endeavor Academy.

• Source 10: Jesus: Symbol and Reality, book by Kenneth Wapnick, Ph.D wherein we find the quote: "The distinction between symbol and reality is shown to be crucial to one's spiritual growth as a student of A Course in Miracles. Confusing the two ensures that one remains a spiritual child, never developing the mature relationship with Jesus that leads to the love and peace that is beyond all symbols, and that alone is our true reality."

-- Andrew Parodi 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We are now having the same discussion that took place in the last AfD. TheRingess—did you know there was a previous AfD, because you didn't mention it? Tyrenius 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a waste of everyone's time. I wish someone with authority in this would just remove the deletion nomination. If not, we are going to go through with this every two months. -- Andrew Parodi 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per speedy keep guidelines. Last AfD was consensus keep 2 months ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per Badlydrawnjeff. --The Editrix 14:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Deja vu all over again. Carlossuarez46 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Does anyone apart form me see this as a walled garden? It looks like this is a teapot tempest, a dispute between a small number of devotees of opposing views. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• This again was addressed in the previous AfD, e.g. with observations such as :

This issue was the centerpiece of a high profile lawsuit ... this issue of authorship of ACIM became the focalpoint of a very high profile court case between Foundation for A Course In Miracles and Endeavor Academy [21][22].Andrew Parodi 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius 12:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There appears to be an edit war going on in this article, with editors even reverting each other's comments on the talk page as "vandalism". It would almost certainly help if a few more neutral folks would step in and try to cool down the tensions. Kickaha Ota 20:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Response Isn't this article baffling? It's continually being attacked from EVERY DIRECTION. It's a bit surreal. Obviously, it's struck quite a nerve with a lot of people. In my opinion, the most interesting case has been Ste4k, who suggested that the article is not notable, and when contacted he himself referred to this as simply being "some article" about "some book". After slapping just about every sentence with a "verify credibility" tag, he's off to the main A Course In Miracles page, slapping every sentence there with a "citation needed" tag. It's really quite astonishing. Just when one person is done going on a rant about this article, someone else comes along. This deletion attempt is a perfect example.... Anyway, yes, more neutral people here would be wonderful. -- Andrew Parodi 07:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum The user by the name of Ste4k really doesn't like A Course In Miracles. After refusing to listen to reason on this "authorship" page, after slapping just about every other sentence of the main page with a "citation needed" tag, he/she is off to the page about Foundation for Inner Peace and trying to get it deleted by saying it is not notable. Ste4k has said that none of this is personal and he/she doesn't have an attachment to any of this; just doing his/her "job". But obviously he/she has a real investment here in saying that ACIM isn't notable, despite loads of evidence that it is. Fascinating. -- Andrew Parodi 08:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment After editing each and every citation in this article and checking each reference including name and address of owner, reading each article, and etc., as the logs will bear out, I made appropriate and factual edits with comments. I prefer 0RR as a philosphy and haven't much concern or time to play revert games. I asked what was the importance of this book and instead of giving me a simple answer, I was left to perform that investigation for myself. I have a NPOV on this topic matter, but I have a strong POV about the presentation of original research when it comes to this encyclopedia. It doesn't matter to me whether the book, or it's stories, or the claims of several insignificant web sites are true or not. But whatever is used as a citation and reference must be used as the material in the article. Anything less, should simply be deleted if for no other reason than to allow an opportunity for authors to do more research on their topics. Ste4k 08:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I wonder, why is it only you who continually accuse these ACIM-related articles of being "original research" and not being "verifiable." It doesn't seem to me that anyone else makes these claims. And, by the way, I'm not the only one who has made this comment about you. These pages you are attempting to destroy are not "original research." Rather, they are about a topic you do not like and are apparently obsessed with getting rid of. Well, have at it, but you're going to fail. ACIM has sold too many copies, has too many followers, too many critics, and has too strong of a presence on the Internet for you to claim that it is not notable and not verifiable. Basides, aren't you late for the local Trekkie convention? -- Andrew Parodi 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Curiosity Perhaps if you would take some time to show the verifiability in the article I might change my vote. Whether this article remains alive or not matters little to me. What matters is a well rounded high quality encyclopedia. I was not the one that nominated this article for deletion. I was the one that put the facts from the cites which were quoted into the article. And this would actually be a good place for you to explain your edit summary. Such as the reason why the court case mentioned had the plaintiff confused with the defendant, or why you insisted on using the word "widely" when the first three sources only exist in Texas, or why was it you don't feel I'm important enough to speak with in Discussion, or why you delteted that contradiction tag without explaining it in the article, or why most of the cites you listed hadn't their actual titles, or why you had listed them with without any mention who wrote them. Did you not, here, in this very conversation scream at me that you had TEN OUTSIDE SOURCES and is not "original research"? Why were they all in only three books? Please stop harassing me now, I have better things to do than answer your questions. Thanks. Ste4k 10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How's about continuing this discussion a) in a more friendly collaborative way b) on the article talk page and not here. Tyrenius 11:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This person is without a doubt the strangest and most annoying person I've ever met on the Internet. After he/she paid a great deal of attention to many ACIM articles (which means slapping just about every sentence with a "citation needed" tag), I contacted him/her on his/her talk page. The response I got was that he/she hardly remembers his/her comments about "some article". Later, I was told to "stop harassing" him/her, when in fact all I had done was attempt to understand why he/she will not trust any source offered. (Sources that he/she has not found acceptable have been found acceptable by many others.) I'm really at a loss with this person. Hopefully, others will keep an eye on him/her as well. For some unknown reason, he/she wants to destroy all ACIM-related articles. -- Andrew Parodi 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. In addition to supporting the deletion of this page and attempting to get the page about Foundation for Inner Peace deleted, this person is also behind deletion attempts of the article about William Thetford and Gary Renard. I'd like to know what it is about ACIM that this person finds so unappealing. Oh, and on this person's talk page they are whining to someone that I am part of "some advocacy group" or something (fascinating how on one hand this person whines about the need for verifiable facts, and then turns around and makes such unverified statements; I'm a part of NO advocacy group), and then says I am harassing him/her. And apparently someone is "collecting information" on me and my "harassment" of this person. In reality, it isn't harassment but an attempt to understand why he/she will not be reasonable and accept perfectly decent citations. But I suppose that's a futile attempt, because this person, apparently, doesn't like to explain his/her real motives. His/her own personal Wikipedia page contains the weird self-description: "Explaining anything about myself personally would violate my neutrality", as though his/her own talk page is an actual Wikipedia article that would be debated by others. Weird. -- Andrew Parodi 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, he/she is also attempting to get the Kenneth Wapnick and Helen Schucman articles deleted. Such a waste of time. If these pages are deleted, someone else will just create them again. Round and round we'll go. We'll be back there debating a deletion for a second time, just like with this article. -- Andrew Parodi 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I am persuaded that this is a footnote in A Course in Miracles and no more. This article appears to be an attempt to re-fight the court case in the court of public opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I contest the claim that this law suit was high profile and policy states that the article must establish such a fact. The only references that exist about this lawsuit are two file copies of the court itself. Unless some sort of reputible resource can be cited, all of that information should be stricken from the article based on WP:VER using WP:RS guidelines. Ste4k 16:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are choosing the wrong forum for debating what should or should not be part of the content of the article; this discussion is about whether the article should be kept as is, merged into another article, or deleted. Kickaha Ota 17:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article discusses a notable subject. The disputes about particular sources mentioned in the article don't undermine the notability of the controversy itself. And given the circumstances and the hard feelings that are clearly involved, it seems best to keep this content as a separate page, rather than trying to merge it into another article that appears to have its own controversies. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kickaha Ota. JChap 23:32, 28 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunnyside Perennials

A profoundly unnotable business - 3 Google hits (2WP+own site) TerriersFan 07:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 08:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. -- Steel 16:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, currently does not come close to falling within the guidelines of WP:CORP. DrunkenSmurf
• Delete ^{24 June 2006 00:35} Ste4k wrote: Topic matter is unverifiable having no reliable published source.
• Delete fails WP:CORP. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:39, 28 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people by name: Tom-Toq

One page of what appears to be a grand project which could eventually list everyone in the world. Non-encyclopaedic. The other pages will need attention, too, and obviously this nomination stands for the project as a whole. MichaelMaggs 07:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete all related pages, blatantly fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat 08:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep the "grand project" already survived AfD- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name- and if this debate came up delete, don't you think that would leave a strange, inexplicable gap in that project? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep by the grand scheme. Though I would like to see some usage statistics on these list of name pages. -- Koffieyahoo 09:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as part of the Grand Scheme (which I suspect would eventually become more useful as a separate wiki). May be useful to Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged. Would be interested to know how many people are listed in total in this project! Grutness...wha? 09:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the separate wiki, see Wikitree. Uncle G 13:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- per nom and Coredesat above -- MrDolomite 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't really see this project being that useful, but this project should be nominated as a whole. Wickethewok 14:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and all related. We might as well copy in the phone book. 23skidoo 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Did I miss something? All the people listed are notable (or at least the majority of them are blue links). Hardly copying the phone book. Fagstein 16:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• I am sorry, but I do not see your view on this. Delete per above. Freddie _Message? 23:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is part of a bigger set of lists; no worse than "living people" + "dead people". Carlossuarez46 06:43, 25 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. Robert 14:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lucon

Homemade PC game. An UNRELEASED homemade game ("The release date for Lucon has not yet been announced"). Gets 28 Google hits, which tells me that there's not a lot of anticipation for it. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment This is a new and yet to be released game. More information will be added and/or corrected as more sources become available, meaning that the article doesn't understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Calton | Talk 08:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for non-notable crystal-balling. --Coredesat 08:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per crystal ball comments.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 08:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete scrying prohibited. Jammo (SM247) 08:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- unreleased says it all -- MrDolomite 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Danny Lilithborne 00:11, 24 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 - text dump, copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft 13:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology standardization

Looks like a text dump from somewhere. The same or similar article has been deleted from ISO/TC 37 after WP:PROD (making this a contested proposed deletion). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy Delete per Kevin_b_er Probable copyvio. It is a word-for-word dump of this ISO document. --DaveG12345 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Incidentally, the sister article Infoterm is similarly a word-for-word dump of the company's promotional PDF available for download here. Infoterm has been a candidate for deletion before, but I don't know how to find the log (am just going to have a look), nor do I know exact WP policy on unadulterated text dumps of promo material like this. So, FWIW, I'll leave it here for now. --DaveG12345 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment OK, the AfD-tag "Advertisement, possibly a text dump from somewhere" was added to Infoterm by the nom of this current nom, Mike Rosoft, on May 27, 2006 and was manually removed by a user the day after. So I guess this one's "contested" too. I'm not sure how to do these AfDs, so if anyone wants to help out, that would be great. It's a fact that Infoterm is a straight text dump (linkage to original above), with some minor recent edits (e.g. to remove the telltale "Mission Statement" header, etc.) --DaveG12345 09:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, copyvio. --Coredesat 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Under speedy delete A8. No question as to just being a plain old text dump. Note that the history section is also copyvio. PDF version of the material Kevin_b_er 00:10, 24 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. Flowerparty^☀ 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surojeet

Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary. -- Koffieyahoo 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef, fails WP:NOT. --Coredesat 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as name dicdef. Wickethewok 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:43, 23 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] InterContinental Belgrade

Hotels should be at WikiTravel (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents Fram 09:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete notability of the hotel not asserted. -- Koffieyahoo 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as as non-notable - the article is a description of the location of the hotel - or transwiki to Wikitravel if something notable about this hotel is added.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and/or transwiki -- per aeropagitica -- MrDolomite 14:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiTravel if anything can be added, otherwise delete. --Coredesat 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wikitavel. No encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with notability for now I think that I might have been too quick on the gun and doing some more research, there seems to be some hints of this hotel being a notable building in Belgrade and the site of some recent history. I invite the defenders of the article to add some of that info to make it more suitable for WP. Pascal.Tesson 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per other delete votes. Transwikiing to Wikitravel is not an option since they have a different license and are not a Wikimedia Foundation project. [23] Anyway, they don't want full articles about individual hotels, just entries for them under the city name. [24] --Metropolitan90 02:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 5-star hotel in the capital city of a country where there are probably very very few 5-star hotels. The photo shows that it predates the fall of communism so it most likely has an interesting history and role in the city. CalJW 15:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If this article here gets to stay, what is this article missing in order to have a place here? Besides this hotel, the Hyatt Regency Belgrade also has a lot more content than that Japanese hotel, yet more people wish to see it deleted. --Krytan talk 16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, there are probably a good number of articles for hotels that should be deleted (and I've nominated a few over the last two days), but that does not make a case for the notability of the InterContinental Belgrade. Pascal.Tesson 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hotels are not inherently notable, this one does not make a case for inclsion here. Inner Earth 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This seems to be a single hotel, which do not usually merit their own articles (unless this is a chain?). Anyways, the "this was kept so this should be kept" argument is one of my least favorite things to read on AFD and the case he mentions is a year old anyway. Imo, CalJW's arguments don't really work either - we don't keep articles based on how "interesting" the subject could potentially be. Also, there have been no sources presented claiming anything, so thusfar this is all original research. Wickethewok 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This hotel does appear to be notable. The article does need work, but that is not a reason to delete. And yes, it is part of a chain, so if this article is deleted, a better option may be to merge into the chain article. Vegaswikian 23:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - If its a chain, it really doesn't need its own article. Single hotels usually do not get separate articles if they are a part of chain, except under crazy circumstances of some sort. Wickethewok 12:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --JJay 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Question for the last three Keep-voters: "This hotel does appear to be notable": in what way? I don't think anyone has given a reason to believe that it is notable, yet you all vote "keep" because of its supposed notability. Fram 08:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What gave you that idea? I didn't say anything about "notability". Please define "notable" and explain why a Belgrade hotel should be "notable" to someone who lives in my country. --JJay 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Which bit of the 'per above' were you referring to then? Inner Earth 10:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The two keep comments that don't use meaningless terms such as "notable". --JJay 11:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm totally confused. You (JJay) vote "Keep per above". The "above" is the Keep by Vegaswikian, which uses as its argument to keep that it appears to be notable. If you feel that it is a meaningless term and you feel that I have the need to define notability, then why did you vote like you did? As for the other Keep comments, being a 5star hotel is no reason for inclusion (there are at least four of those in Belgrade, so that's not very unique), and "most likely having an interesting history"... until someone can give us resources on that interesting history, this is idle speculation, and thus not verifiable. As far as I can see, the hotel was built in 1979, closed during the Yugo wars, and will reopen in december 2006 (yes, it isn't even opened now). [25] Fram 12:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for your confusion. To be perfectly clear, I disagree with you, but agree with CalJW and Krytan. They gave perfectly satisfactory reasons for keeping this article. You have given a few more- i.e. closed during war. What you haven't given is a definition that we can all live with - meaning for people in every country where wikipedia is accessible - for "notability" regarding hotels. --JJay 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In which case I encourage you to participate in the discussion of a proposed notability guidelines for hotels at WP:HOTELS. Pascal.Tesson 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

When it becomes a guideline I'll take it into consideration. When it becomes policy I will abide by it. Until such time, I will continue to view "notability" as a non-existant concept not worth discussing. --JJay 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In an effort to save the article (which I believe is borderline but, hey, we can give it a try) I have modified the article to remove all content that could be viewed as spam (like convenience of the location) and added a reference to at least one notable incident, the murder of a well-known paramilitary leader in the hotel's lobby. Pascal.Tesson 17:36, 29 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Ascher

Seems to be non-notable --BradBeattie 10:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. Doesn't appear to have made any ground-breaking music videos or other contributions, according to imdb.com.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7, Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. Althought he has an IMDB profile, nothing listed on there gives him any sort of notability. Viridae 13:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, ^{24 June 2006 01:20} Ste4k wrote: Apparently the subject is notable and an expert within his own field. Time should be given to develop the bio, verify and source the resources listed on the self-published site. If this page becomes stale failing to develop sources of notability, then certainly delete it.
• Delete Nothing listed in article or IMDb profile asserts notability. Eluchil404 14:39, 27 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nii Ahene

Brought to discussion because the article attempts to establish notability. Its claims are highly suspect, however. Vote to Delete. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 10:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as {{db-bio}} candidate. Article doesn't demonstrate notability of individual according to WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD A7. Vanity. That blog of his has a alexa rank of 1.3 million. Viridae 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete "Nationally notorious" site has run since April and averages 5 comments per (rare) post, of which an average of, um, 5 are spam from student credit card firms and bookies. Man, does that guy seem paranoid though, or what? --DaveG12345 11:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Closest thing to notability is having a website with Alexa rank 1,316,439. That just doesn't cut it. We are the knights who delete Nii! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 23 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 with Tim Henman. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henmania

requires one or two lines on main Tim Henman article not worthy of a seperate article Charlesknight 11:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup and merge in to Tim Henman, with a redirect to prevent the article's recreation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We are not urbandictionary.com. Viridae 11:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable slang -- MrDolomite 14:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Tim Henman, sadly this is an ovreused phrase in the British press around Wimbeldon, eg last week in The Times (London) was [26] using the word, and for use over a few years to show it's not a (fast-dying fad) there is this [27] comment piece (top two google:timesonline+henman hits). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inner Earth (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 June 2006 .Inner Earth 11:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. --Coredesat 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tim Henman. The idea of "Henmania" is real but most of this article is a joke. --Metropolitan90 02:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Leave it as it is! Henmania is a tangible occurence each year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.33.65 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - awfully written. If the term must have a page, write it sensibly and in Wikipedia's unbaised and neutral way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.83.231 (talk • contribs)
• Merge and redirect to Tim Henman. Its a notable subject, but does not need its own article. Its length means it can easily become a section in the Tim Henman article - • The Giant Puffin • 16:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Has to be kept in one form or another. ShizuokaSensei 11:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect I think it's a very accurate piece. Maybe correct a few grammatical errors though. Also, whilst you are doing it, try not take yourselves so seriously.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freespace Collective

Listed for speedy deletion as "having no assertion of notability," but I wasn't able to judge whether it was notable or not. Putting this here to get consensus, no vote from me. -- SCZenz 11:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Did some research. Maybe I'm missing something, but what is notable about some guys who once owned a PA and a van? You gotta love the way these "reclaiming autonomous space" merchants tend to end in "differing political views and personality clashes" though. --DaveG12345 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Recommend to keep an eye on spin-off WP:V/WP:NN Mike Divell. Bet he took the van. --DaveG12345 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD:A7. There is absolutely no notability here. --Coredesat 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ^{24 June 2006 01:31} Ste4k wrote: Topic matter is unverifiable having no reliable published source.
• Speedy Delete. I thought we took care of it once before on A7 grounds? This one remains obvious. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:39, 27 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. Robert 14:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvia Ada Wachuku

I'd like the community opinion on this one. The article appears to be a vanity one relating to the Wachuku family generally - see AfD on Ugonna Wachuku above. While she has made positive contributions to education in Nigeria, I feel there is inadequate notability for an encyclopedia article. I am unable to verify (but don't actually doubt) some teaching awards in secondary schools and a religious knowledge workbook. If the subject had been European, I would just have put a prod tag on the article so there may be some reverse systemic bias at work here.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. Potentially notable as close relative of major political figure (Jaja Wachuku). We have Roger Clinton, Jr., after all. Tevildo 12:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete being related to someone notable is not notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, being related to a notable figure does not make someone notable. The awards really aren't notable on a national/international scale. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugonna Wachuku. --Coredesat 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per other delete votes. Being the sister-in-law of the speaker of the Nigerian House of Representatives does not merit an article; I certainly can't name any of Dennis Hastert's sisters-in-law. --Metropolitan90 01:58, 24 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. Flowerparty^☀ 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newington Nighthawks

A youth (15-17 age group) icehockey team, article makes no claims of notability and neither does the club's website. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecticut Renegades. (There's no sign that the Northeast Midget Hockey League is in any way notable either, it gets one ghit, for "Northeast Midget Hockey League", which is the League's own website.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Tevildo 12:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject in fact has notability from the league they're in and the league appears to be notable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BoojiBoy (talk • contribs) 13:10, June 23, 2006.
  • Whoops, forgot to sign it. BoojiBoy 13:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that it's relevant to this AFD, but in what sense is the league notable ? There are indeed ghits for NEMHL, but if you look for non-NEMHL sites, the best that there is is The Saratogian. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, upon further thought I'm more neutral towards this, but I don't think it should be speedied so count my vote as a keep if it will allow full discussion. BoojiBoy 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly speedy. Per nom. Also, keeping this is encouraging the use of Wikipedia as a collection of indiscriminate information, in this case the membership and stats of any sports team anywhere. FreplySpang 13:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- agree with FreplySpang -- MrDolomite 14:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD:A7. --Coredesat 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete ^{24 June 2006 01:24} Ste4k wrote: Topic matter is unverifiable having no reliable published source per Item 6.3

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flowerparty^☀ 10:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Drill Pty Ltd

nonnotable company NawlinWiki 12:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and as advertisment. Tevildo 12:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable per WP:CORP. Google gets 10 results, at least 2 of which are wiki. Viridae 13:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable, advertising. Advanced 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Frekja 17:13, 24 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. Flowerparty^☀ 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Is

Album from a band (WOLFPAC) which was AfD'ed some time ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOLFPAC). That article was redirected, but I do not think this one could be as useful as a redirect. (Liberatore, 2006) 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I forgot to list this one on 21, doing it now. (Liberatore, 2006) 12:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per previous AfD. Fagstein 16:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Albums of nn bands are inherently nn. Eluchil404 14:42, 27 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. Flowerparty^☀ 10:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kara Hartzler

Very few google hits. Top hit is an article in a very small Anabaptist magazine. Her plays have been performed in a couple of small community type theaters. Doesn't meet "average professor" guideline. My vote would be Delete. Dipics 12:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Beaner1 13:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- MrDolomite 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --- She's a professional playwright with a relevant academic background and a list of plays and productions. She's clearly notable. TruthbringerToronto 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The terms "professional" and "relevant academic background" may be question begging here. While she has written several plays, I cannot find any evidence that any of them have been produced at anything but the smallest community theater level. As to her "academic background", having studied playwriting does not in any way infer success in the field, nor does it confer notability. Dipics 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. There are degrees of notability, TruthbringerToronto Bwithh 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not everyone associated with some aspect of entertainment is notable. -Medtopic 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 20:34, 23 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 with Furry fandom. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furvert

Furry slang/neologism not notable outside of the world of furries. No reliable sources. It does not justify an article of its own, since Wikipedia is not urbandictionary.com - Motor (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge anything with relevance to Furry fandom. Viridae 12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep widely-used term, as the article notes it was even used on the show "ER". If so-rare-as-to-be-essentially-nonexistant sexual practices like Cleveland steamer get articles, then (relatively) widespread ones should too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, lots of slang words get one mention on a TV show. As for cleveland steamer: WP:INN (that's not policy or a guideline BTW. It's an essay that could do with wider input). Even if you ignore all that, this is basically a dictdef... and one which belongs on urbandictionary. - Motor (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable sources of information on this given/found. Wickethewok 14:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to Furry fandom, delete the rest. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --Coredesat 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge to furry fandom and yiff. DyslexicEditor 01:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WINAD and this is a dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not really important or famous word enough for Wikipedia. I'm pretty happy with the WikiFur entry; whatever facts we have in this article that aren't in WikiFur yet should be merged there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As it is a useful term used by the furry fandom. ISD 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Belongs in the furry fandom article. Provided the editors can be trusted not to remove it. - 85.210.17.250 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment LOL, they wouldn't even allow it in there for an hour. The furvert article even has a debate about some people trying to add pictures to the furvert article and the people who wanted to were banned and their talk pages protected. DyslexicEditor 01:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Furry fandom. Yamaguchi先生 07:12, 29 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shabadelphia

Self-promotion of group that does not seem to have much recognition outside their own circle. Participation in Philadelphia Film Festival may count as borderline notability, so I (conservatively) refrained from speedying. Note that their 17 unique Google hits are virtually all from their self-promotion or their social networking, and none are from established newspapers, critics, etc. FreplySpang 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Screening at the Philadelphia Film Festival which, by a rough estimation, ran about 250 films this year, does not constitute notability in any way. This film has 1 review and 8 ratings on the Festival's website. (It currently has a 3, by the way, with 3 5s, 3 1s, a two, and a four.) The runnning time of the film is two minutes, and there is no claim that its content is particular original or groundbreaking. Simply being from a city "which is not known for its sketch comedy" -- whatever that means -- is not enough to make this group notable. This is Vanity with a capital V. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- per nom -- MrDolomite 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We live in a society today where things are constantly created and destroyed, and if something is not up to the public's socially constructed standards of quality, it is destroyed. Therefore, from a psychological point of view it seems natural that there would be an urge to destroy this article as its notability does not seem to match up with those standards. But before deleting this, please think of the children. Think of little Johnny from Laramie, Wyoming who comes from a lower middle class family and doesn't have internet access at home but is very bright and has a yearning for obscure trivia knowledge so he sneaks out to the public library just so he can access Wikipedia. If you delete this article, little Johnny and all the other children just like him will be deprived of ever knowing about Shabadelphia, and if that happens, let it be on the heads of the people who voted "Delete". I implore you, please save this article, for the children. Mr. Sensible 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note User has only four edits. --Coredesat 20:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note on your Note: None of them are in the Article Namespace. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 10:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note on "Note" and "Note on your Note" I might only have 4 edits (well 5 now) and none of them are in the article namespace but that's only because I know that'd I'd have trouble with that whole NPOV thing. I think that my opinions on this site are as good as the next literate guy's so IMO I'm gonna have to note that neither the note nor the note on your note are notable. Mr. Sensible 18:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 20:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• An excellent and well-written defense, Mr. Sensible. Thank you for making up my mind on this article. Delete (I can hear little Johnny crying now.) Tony Fox (speak) 20:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If Mr Sensible's comment is an example of the group's work, I'm sure they will become notable as comedians before long. :) However, until that day... Tevildo 21:27, 23 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyatt Regency Belgrade

Hotels belong in WikiTravel Fram 13:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- per nom -- MrDolomite 14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Specific hotel articles are clearly not necessary. Wikitravel or whatever it. Wickethewok 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a notable hotel in that city. However, if this article must be deleted, then all others shall be as well. You can find some at Category:Hotels in Canada, or even Category:Hotels by country. So if this article has to go, then all of those other articles qualify for deletion as well. --Krytan talk 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki or Delete. This reads like an ad. --Coredesat 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why should we delete it. If you are so worried about the article then why don't you just delete the whole hotel section for every single country. Someone actually put some time and effort to do this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukaP (talk • contribs)
• Please note that transwikiing to Wikitravel is not an option; it's not a Wikimedia Foundation project and uses a different license. [28] Furthermore, Wikitravel wouldn't want this as a separate article anyway; hotels get coverage there but not separate articles. [29] Also, "oppose" is considered an unclear preference; I think the two "oppose" commenters meant "keep" instead. That being said, delete per Wickethewok and Coredesat. --Metropolitan90 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Strangely enough, only the hotels in Belgrade are being categorized for deletion, even though there aren't that many Belgrade hotel articles... It is a shame, really, and unfair. So just to be fair, I've categorized the Ritz Carlton hotel in Toronto for deletion, the Chateau Frontenac, and I'm on my way to do more. It is the only fair thing to do. Clearly they don't go by policies of Wikipedia. --Krytan talk 04:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually responsible for nominating two of the Belgrade hotels because I just happened to look there and it so happens that a few of those articles simply include travel info like number of rooms, location and services to guests. That's content for WikiTravel as stated in the guidelines. Interestingly, the Chateau Frontenac that you proposed for deletion is a perfect example of a hotel that deserves an article. The notability of the Chateau Frontenac does not stem from the fact that it is a hotel but from the fact that it is the most recognized symbol of Quebec City, is an example of a distinct architectural style and was host to an important meeting of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In contrast, the Hyatt Regency Belgrade is a 15 year old building whose claim to fame seems to be internet access, a pool and 24 hour room service.Pascal.Tesson 17:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You have nothing to worry about, the Chateau Frontenac won't even get deleted in the end. Instead of nominating an article for deletion, you could have requested a re-write maybe. However, you go along nominating for deletion instead, because apparently it reads like an ad. Well, how else would you describe the hotel without listing the number of rooms and location? By the way, yes, I've removed the afd from the Frontenac. I've actually been there more than once, and it was a great experience. --Krytan talk 19:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep even if it does look like an ad. Major hotels in national capitals are probably notable enough for an article, but this one should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic format. Cortomaltais 18:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an advert. What references could we use to verify any comprehensive exposition of the topic? Fails WP:CORP, the most relevent current guideline (hotel notability still an essay). Hotels are not notable just because they exist. Inner Earth 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The AfD tag should not be used instead of a {{cleanup}} tag. A 5 star hotel may very well meet WP:CORP. However the article needs a good cleanup to be sure. Vegaswikian 23:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the AfD tag instead of the Cleanup one. For cleanup, it has to be notable to start with. What arguments do you have for its notability? Furthermore, look carefully at WP:CORP: this hotel fails WP:CORP, the chain is the one that needs (and has) an article. (See Chains and Franchises in there). Fram 05:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --JJay 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I just realized I had not stated my opinion clearly. As a reply to those recommending to keep, I want to remind everyone that there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a 5-star hotel meets the WP:CORP criteria. Furthermore the precedents specifically mention that as a general rule information about hotels belongs in WikiTravel. Of course, I am open to arguments explaining why this hotel has specific notability which would make it an exception to that rule but that point has yet to be made. User:Krytan has voted for keep, which of course he has every right to, but also has correctly pointed out that many hotel articles need to go. He has nominated two hotels in Toronto for deletion, at least one of those is a very legitimate AfD candidate WP:Articles for deletion/Central Hotel, Toronto and is getting much support for deletion. Why does his reasonning not apply in this case? Pascal.Tesson 19:25, 29 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Connie Dungs

Notability concerns. I speedied it the notice was removed, then it was proded and that was removed. About 3,050 google hits. BJK 13:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I modified the article in response to the speedy deletion notice but did not remove the notice. When the next notice was placed on the page, I did remove it in accordance with the policy explained within the notice itself. When the notice was replaced, I removed it, again in accordance with the instructions contained in the policy itself. This exchange can be traced, in part, here: Talk:The Connie Dungs CDaniel Friday, 2006-06-23 T 18:24 UTC

Comment: If he's going to dredge up the past I'll just say I was wrong in reading the policy and thought it was a AfD notice not just a prod. I know the diffrence now. BJK 19:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Its hard to say if they meet WP:MUSIC since they have released more than two albums, but are Mutant X Records or Plan It X Records considered as "important indie labels"? I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now based on the number of unique Ghits for the band, but the article needs some improvements to verify that the band meets WP:MUSIC, including sources. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 13:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless reliable sources are shown providing at least some level of notability. Wickethewok 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC.--Peta 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Disclosure--I'm the main author of the article in question. The Connie Dungs released four albums and two vinyl-only EPs on Mutant Pop Records (former home to well-known punk band Dillinger Four and Sicko (http://www.sicko.com) as well as minor releases on Plan It X Records, Harmless Records (former home to well-known punk band Apocalypse Hoboken), and Cool Guy Records (one-time home of Fifteen (band)). They were also selected to appear on the annual "shreds" compilation on Shredder Records alongside bands like Discount (band), Plow United, Cub (band), Beatnik Termites etc. Each of these releases is in addition to several self-recorded and self-released demos and tapes. They were enthusiastically promoted by Mykel Board in the seminal underground punk publication maximumrocknroll. They also went on several self-funded local and broad tour of the middle U.S. in their five year existence. The Connie Dungs did not achieve widespread fame in their brief existence, but they did acheive a foothold in the underground (as evidenced by their 20+ releases on multiple popular underground labels). Even now, six years after their breakup, they continue thrive in the underground pop punk world (as evidenced, in part, by the apparent high # of Ghits). Additionally, there were several red links leading to the blank "Connie Dungs" wikipedia page (I was inspired to create the page after reading up on Connie Chung and noticing the red link there) CDaniel Friday, 2006-06-23 T 17:20 UTC
• Delete - per WP:MUSIC. --BJK 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to meet WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and tag for cleanup. The band seems known and still respected in USA punk forum circles, they get Ghits, they get some positive Amazon user reviews... They have the albums (on labels of unknown notability) plus some evidence of national touring, so they may just squeak in WP:MUSIC. Article would benefit from some WP:V and severe reduction in use of the word "core". --DaveG12345 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup, add proper references and lose the My Space links. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep definitely a notable band within the independent pop punk circles. Also it does not fail WP:BAND on a number of points including: (Xsxex 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
  • Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
  • Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
• Keep based on comments by Xsxex it meets WP:BAND requirements. Yamaguchi先生 00:52, 27 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Bitches.