Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 6

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Ling

Vanity for Mr. Ling. His work with Naschy and the Grandmother Martha project can be (and mostly has been) merged with those respective articles. Holding an out-of-date couple of Guinness entries is not a free pass to notability, nor is trying to pass oneself off as a member of the Holy Roman Empire. For your examination, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-04-27, searching for "Sydney Ling" and, as further evidence, don't take my word for it - see The official Sydney Ling site. Still convinced of notability? Girolamo Savonarola 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Seems somewhat notable. --Ezeu 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Main reasons to keep are borderline notability in low-budget movies, and to debunk the hype. Tearlach 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. RobLinwood 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Per Ezeu. QuizQuick 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems marginally notable. Tachyon01 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete as NN. Marginal notability is not a keeper. Tychocat 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep We're not running out of space and he is somewhat notable. Ben W Bell talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Home produced movies are about as notable as vanity published books. -- GWO
• Delete, not notable per GWO. - Motor (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per GWO. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Gotta love the link to the official Sydney Ling site. in the nomination (not the article itself), but that little laugh notwithstanding, the article does suggest sufficient notability for mine. Colonel Tom 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject does not meet inclusion criteria at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sure, there's a little notability, but definitely not enough. -- Kicking222 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough. Jmsloderbeck 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete not quite notable enough for me. —Mets501^talk 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Home movies does not meet WP:BIO. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Guiness Book of World Records is not an indicator of notability. Part of the appeal of the book is that most of the people in it are entirely obscure. If he had the world record for something more notable we cold talk, but making a long documentary of his grandmother doesn't really qualify. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough, as said --SeanMcG 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough, as said --—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough Bwithh 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Seems to be sort of notable Chipka 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per savidan Computerjoe's talk 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please there is some notability and wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G1. Naconkantari 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gnome (power)

Seriously? Maybe even speedy delete under nonsense. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete and bjoadn nonsense Benon 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN SM247 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: as nonesense.Deathawk 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Not funny enough for BJAODN. DarthVader 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per nom WCX 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. RobLinwood 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: as nonsense. -- Scientizzle 00:34, 6 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 snowy delete. Sango123 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journalisticity

Delete. Original research. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, heavily POV. --Bachrach44 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No other references/information outside this entry.
• Delete crap neologism. SM247 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but mind the NPA. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • SM247 seems to be referring to the neologism and not the creator of the article, therefore there is no P at which a Personal Attack could be directed. Peyna 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Correct. I believe crap is an excellent universal word of a derisory nature and in this case was clearly directed at what is obviously a coined phrase of no common usage or notability. If I had said 'crap editor' (which I certainly do not mean), you were indeed correct to remind me. SM247 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If user x writes an article and user y calls it "crap", it is most certainly a personal attack. Why don't we err on the side of civility, please? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, I disagree with you here, Russian. I don't think you're a bad person, so if you wrote a bad article, I would easily be able to call it crap without calling you crap. I call articles garbage in AfD discussions frequently, but it's because I think the article- not the person(s) who wrote/edited it- is of little value. -- Kicking222 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with Kicking222. Excellent editors are capable of making crap edits. Me. For example. -- GWO
          • If user X is offended at user Y calling user X's article "crap," then user X needs to read WP:OWN. Plus, WP:NPA pretty clearly explains what is and isn't a personal attack, and this was nowhere near that. Peyna 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NEO. RobLinwood 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per neologism Masterpjz9 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No references. Reads like original research. Tachyon01 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like nonsense to me.Ben W Bell talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Molerat 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Guinnog 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Deletisticity savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Deville (Talk) 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above redfox 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism. Ace of Sevens 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very POV neologism, no sources. WP:SNOW? Grandmasterka 04:16, 8 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 snowy delete. Sango123 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philorthodox

creator deleted prod w/o explanation. fails WP:WEB. Bachrach44 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RobLinwood 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB Masterpjz9 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like an advertisement. Tachyon01 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- it is an advertisement. Reyk _YO! 07:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Motor (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, advertising. --Terence Ong 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement Jmsloderbeck 17:10, 6 June 2006
• Delete per WP:WEB --Guinnog 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Ace of Sevens 09:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Eluchil404 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website, very POV article. Grandmasterka 04:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Rmhermen. DarthVader 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martinolagucci

Delete. Violates WP:BIO. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete garbage. SM247 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Complete bollocks. --Ezeu 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. CSD G1. DarthVader 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. per others. RobLinwood 00:37, 6 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 snowy delete. Sango123 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britannia cars

1. This article is trivial. 2. Advertising - Only reason for existence appears to be to link to commercial site DavidCane

• Delete. Spam. RobLinwood 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN company. --Ezeu 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn ad  Funky Monkey  (talk)  03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement/spam. Tachyon01 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP Masterpjz9 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam and fails WP:CORP - Motor (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising for non notable company. Ben W Bell talk 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:SPAM, WP:CORP --Terence Ong 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Grandmasterka 04:19, 8 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final option

• Delete. I'm not certain, but I lean towards deletion on this. Thought I'd err on the side of AfD, since that'll open it up to consensus. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient context, merge content to an appropriate article on counterterrorism or the event described. SM247 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad for an old movie. Tychocat 07:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, dreadful article but could conceivably be expanded into a discussion of the final step in police/counter-terror activity... but unless that happens quickly or someone comes up with a good redirect target... delete. - Motor (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there's no way this is a formal or specific enough term to make an encyclopedic article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - as the only contributor has blanked the article in this revision [1] BigDT 11:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, I believe this fits G5, since he blanked the page. --Terence Ong 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I've unblanked the article. I'd like to give the editor who created it a chance to improve it. - Motor (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep With some cleanup, expansion, and attention, I think it could be expanded into a very useful article. At the moment it focuses on one incident related to terrorism, but I have heard it used in other contexts, and it is more or less a general law enforcement term. It definately needs expanding, but it is worth keeping. ONUnicorn 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the article is almost content-free, pretty much all the content it has is false other than a dicdef, and it is hard to see how it could ever be improved. Redirect to Who Dares Wins (film) (which is nothing to do with the incident described, but was indeed called Final Option in the US). --Guinnog 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do as you like. Delete or keep. But DO NOT say the content is false without explaining. Also, if you cannot see how the film Who Dares Wins, AKA The Final Option, illustrates the term, or do not believe that it was inspired by Operation Nimrod then perhaps you are unqualified to comment. As for content, there wil never be any if it is deleted. I thought the entire point of this obviously anal site is improvement through open contributions. Once again, do as you like. It obviously means more to you than to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianb0806 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango123 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Rushford-Upton-Berkeley

Looks like vanity but I'm not sure. Got precisely zero google hits when I tried to look for it. Francs2000 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense. It is some poor fellow who has spent 195 quid at lord-of-the-manor-titles.co.uk. --Ezeu 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ezeu. Thais article is pretty nonsensical. -- Kicking222 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity spam. RobLinwood 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. the "nickname, Lord Rubik" kind of gives it away. Fan1967 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure nonsense. No notability. Tachyon01 03:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Ezeu. - Motor (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, or maybe a meaningless, purchased title, like His Lordship the Viscount St. Austell-in-the-Moor Biggleswade-Brixham -- GWO
• Delete, vanity, hoax, if not no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject does not meet the inclusion criteria at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as hoax, or at best nn-bio. --Guinnog 17:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, hoax. --Charlesknight 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. redfox 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A meaningless, purchased title, the very essence of non-notable vanity. Grandmasterka 04:24, 8 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 G4.  RasputinAXP  c 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Action Party (2nd nomination)

Per previous AfD, utterly irrelevant political grouping, comprehensively shown by the content of the article to be NN (I hesitate to call it a party - if it is, it is almost certainly a boring one where even the vaguely interesting guests have all gone home) SM247 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep-It is not an expression of opinion and provides fact. If this should be removed, then many other things-such as old baseball players-should be removed. If it helps people learn, it shouldn't be removed. Alex 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only does the article state that the "party" is no longer active, but they (or "he", most likely) aren't (unlike old baseball players) even of historical interest. RobLinwood 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. More nn political cruft. KleenupKrew 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like a one man party... MarineCorps 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article says it all: it has no chapters anywhere, no candidates for office; the party does not seem to be active in any way, shape or form. I'm almost wondering if this is speediable, since I'm not seeing any claim to notability. Peyna 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The party has not grown any more notable since its last AfD which ended in a delete. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, this probably qualifies as a speedy for recreation of previous deleted content, no? Peyna 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That AfD debate was a while ago. DarthVader 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I've added a db-repost tag anyway. Quote: Currently, the party does not seem to be active in any way, shape or form as it's website currently is off the Internet. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peyna. Tachyon01 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, politicruft and repost of already deleted material. I've added a db-repost tag. - Motor (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, politicruft, nn party, its a repost of the old article. --Terence Ong 13:59, 6 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. Redirects don't belong on AfD; and no incoming links is not a valid reason to delete a redirect anyway. Peyna 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RC airplane

While fixing double redirects, I see that no pages link here EuroSong 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to radio-controlled aircraft - I think that it could be used as a search term. - Richardcavell 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - you might try listing this on Redirects for Deletion instead, if it was just a redirect and you think it's not needed. Otherwise, change the redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. KleenupKrew 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (probably speedy). In-bound links are NOT the only reason for redirects--they're used for searching alternate terms and to prevent duplicate article creation, among other things. This should stay as a redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. 24.18.215.132 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It already was a redirect prior to be listed for AfD, therefore this AfD is improper and I'm going to close it now and change it back to a redirect. If you want to relist it, do so at Redirects for Deletions. Peyna 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Global Positioning System. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homing device

• Delete. Should be transwikied or just flat-out deleted. We're not a dictionary. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Global Positioning System -- Francs2000 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Either expand or delete per it's 'stubiness'. Kershner 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to GPS tracking, Global Positioning System or anywhere useful. -- saberwyn 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as it can be expanded greatly, such as types of homing devices and how they work. -- Kjkolb 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Articles can and should be deleted when they contain no content as this one does. If the article were expanded (and you are free to do so) I would likely change my 'Delete' to a 'Keep'. Kershner 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Global Positioning System article. It would be more suited there. Tachyon01 03:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Tachyon01. Redirects are cheap and useful. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to something useful. Global Positioning System is a good start. - Motor (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Global Positioning System. --Terence Ong 14:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Global Positioning System —Mets501^talk 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd suggest redirecting to somewhere useful, but I can't think of a thing. tracking and tracing seems the best bet of any articles I can find from a quick scan. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to missile guidance or guidance system. --Interiot 12:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. GPS would be a good redirect for this article. Delta 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• GPS would not be a good redirect for this article. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to tracking and tracing as per Arthur. Amalas =^_^= 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Harro5 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TJM Games

Blatant advertising for a nonnotable, and possibly completely made-up, game company -- dcclark (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Either a hoax or somebody using Wikipedia to spam. No such game company exists. Web search came up blank. KleenupKrew 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm new to the speedy delete process, and a quick readover of WP:SPEEDY didn't exactly help me -- there seems to be no obvious template for spam or advertising. Could someone help? -- dcclark (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

{{db|Article about a corporation that fails to make any assertion or claim of notability}} probably would suffice. Peyna 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles which were created primarily for the point of advertising their products may be considered nonsense to some and have absolutely no place on wikipedia. I think many users like to speedy articles because there's a lot of spam articles and they need to be dealt with more quickly.--Andeh 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Delete, pure spam/advertising.--Andeh 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As per Peyna above, I have moved this to a speedy delete.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: Hidden Frontier

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

• Delete. Fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Star Trek cruft. MilesToGo 01:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this seems to be a notable fan production. Note that Star Trek: New Voyages also has an article and both fan productions are mentioned in the "Canonicity and other storylines" section of the Star Trek article. It has plenty of non-trivial google hits and has been mentioned in Variety magazine [2]. I had never heard of it until just now ... but then again, after the debacle of Enterprise, I haven't kept up with the Star Trek scene. Anyway, it looks notable to me. BigDT 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just downloaded an episode ... unwatchable is putting it mildly ... the CG is amazing, but everyone has a green glow (from a green screen) around them ... and calling the acting bad is putting it mildly. The only saving grace is that B&B aren't there to screw it up. BigDT 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Upon watching the first few episodes, I considered it really cheesy, but I have to say that their production values and acting have improved as they've continued. Michael Robson 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm series, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As above, a notable, respected, and popular fanfilm series. Tachyon01 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A "well-respected and popular fanfilm series" sounds like a contradiction in terms almost. More to the point, how the hell do you measure whether a fanfilm is "well-respected and popular"? --Calton | Talk 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The Variety article pushes it just over the notability bar. It and New Voyages are pretty well the two main productions of this subgenre. 23skidoo 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. HF, Exeter and New Voyages are notable films and should not be deleted. HF is the longest running Star Trek fanfilm, with the largets body of work. They've been featured in Variety magazine and have an extremely large following. Nick Cook 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC) This comment was accidentally posted at the AfD discussion directly below this one. I've just cut&pasted it here, leaving the content unchanged. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fan fiction is generally not notable, but this looks like a very popular series. JIP | Talk 08:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fancruft. Being popular with a small collection of people with internet connections and a wikipedia accounts does not justify an entry on Wikipedia. See also, flashcruft, flashartists, furries etc etc etc etc. Copy it to Memory Alpha if it's not already there. - Motor (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Memory Alpha does not accept articles on fan fiction - see [3] - their mission is information on the canonical Star Trek universe. It isn't a question of notability for them, it's a question of being off-topic. BigDT 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is actually a notable, popular and long running fan series. Ben W Bell talk 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just not popular enough. -- GWO
• Keep, This is the longest running fanchise out there. It inspired just about all of the current fan film producers to take up the camera. JusticeCEO 11:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable as an example of fan-produced/amateur film production as a whole --Mhking 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this surpasses cruft, and hovers peacefully on the event horizon of notability. A little more lead paragraph info and a little less episode documentation wouldn't hurt, though. Colonel Tom 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this fan made series are usually non-notable, but this is exceptional. If its non-notable, I believe it would only have one season not seven, notable fan film. --Terence Ong 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fanfic is rarely suitable article material, but as Terence Ong has stated above, the sheer number of episodes this has generated would seem to make it something of an exception to the rule.--Isotope23 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kirok and others Su-laine.yeo 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - while I don't particular care for the series, it's definitely notable for its influence on the fanfilm community and longevity. TheRealFennShysa 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more trekcruft— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a notable fan production. It also has very active forums with 60,743 Posts in 3,053 Topics by 2,418 Members, which means it is not something that someone is doing independently. —Mets501^talk 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable fan fiction. (For what it's worth, although I'm an ST fan, I'm not a fan of ST fan fiction. I found this through WP:AFD and WP:ANI, not by an "invitation".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep - if we're going to have any fanfic type stuff listed here, then this is the one to have. not an st fan. frymaster 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete nonnotable fanfic/fancruft. Please find a or start your own fanfiction star trek wiki if you want this online Bwithh 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Hidden Frontier is anything but "non-notable." In addition they already have their own wikipedia and a very active circle of fans. That those fans are limited to Star Trek fandom does not make them non-notable.

It's great that you have your wiki. so please transwiki Bwithh 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per discussion. -- Wikipedical 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Variety article and IMDB. Easily verifiable. Ziggurat 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard of it, and I'm nto exactly a big Trekker. It seems notable to me. Ace of Sevens 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a fairly notable series, unlike most random fan-fiction this is well respected and heard of by people outside the community Wolfsbane Kane 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - They're also listed in a variety of other news source as well, including CNN. IMDB.com also has a page dedicated to this fan series as well. Despite the fact that it may be of poor quality or laughable storylines, it does have the virtue of being the Longest Running Fan Series for Star Trek, and one of the first to attempt to sucessfully recreate the Live Action series style from the professional TV series productions - 59.167.44.106 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if any fan films are notable, this is. Eluchil404 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Just in being a venture lasting many years with a large following grants it being in Wiki. Wiki is not just about history and many works of literature that are separate from the original venture, such as in Star Wars have been allowed to remain so this should be allowed to have its own page. Wiki is about bringing knowledge to the people and it would be inappropriate to make it harder to get information of this fan series. Lord_Hawk 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC-8)
• Keep - with a large amount of television shows on this site already, i see no reason why a web-based production, albeit a fanfilm, cant have a place here. Arkadyfolkner 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • this is this user's first edit on Wikipedia, and his sole contributions have been to this vote
• Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Nick Cook, Kirok of L'Stok, Lord Hawk, and Arkadyfolkner. If anything, though, the page should be improved, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Robson (talk • contribs) 10:29, June 8, 2006
• Keep - Articles like this are the reason I began getting involved with Wikipedia several years ago. Something should not be deleted because a small number consider it stupid or unnecessary. This is supposed to be a fountain of knowledge, an Encyclopedia that covers all subjects. If you remove this and similar articles, what is to prevent someone from making a case to remove all articles about other small subjects. When someone is curious about something, this needs to remain the place to look, and if you remove this article, you are taking away one of the valuable assets of this be a free (in charge and thought) encyclopedia, focusing on things that For-Profit encyclopedias don't focus on. TEG 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep strictly because I don't understand the nomination. --JJay 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - the article is self-serving at best, incomplete and useless at worst 65.113.125.77 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Worth keeping, as side note, someone deleted my earlier vote to keep, if this happens again that someone will get themselves reported. Arkadyfolkner 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't vote twice, and your earlier vote wasn't deleted, as a moment's search through the page would've revealed — it was moved to the bottom of the vote [4], because AfD votes are listed in chronological order, top to bottom. (WP:AFDM#Refactoring the discussion thread: Some new users add comments at the top of the discussion instead of at the bottom. It is appropriate to move those comments to restore the logical/chronological order.) The nature of my action was also explicitly stated in the edit description itself, which you evidently also appeared to overlook before you decided to assume bad faith. Sadly, such assumptions are more the rule than the exception around here. — Mike •  05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If you find time in between writing your eloquent AfD noms, please see WP:Bite. --JJay 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If you find time inbetween writing your eloquent snarks, please see WP:NOFEEDING. And if you feel the need to reply to this remark, please do so on my talk page, although I'd much prefer you didn't. — Mike •  00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd rather do it here. You write one word noms, but seven lines to rag on a new user. I reiterate: see WP:bite. --JJay 02:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
          • There are a plethora of points you and I could engage on this discussion. Whether my actions were warranted or not. Whether you're being civil or not. Whether you're assuming bad faith or not. Whether you're disrupting the AfD process to make a point or not. Whether editors have to abide by guidelines. But the fact is, I'm enjoying my weekend, and it does in fact take two people to argue. So I'm afraid you're just going to have to satisfy yourself on this one. — Mike •  03:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Strange that it bothers you that I cite one link. I suggest you read it while enjoying your weekend. --JJay 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable series, natch! DillPickle 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Our series is being described as "non-notable" by a few. How are they defining "notable" that we somehow fail? How do we BECOME notable, and therefore worthy of continued inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhiting (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 11, 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Aside from it being a well known fan project, the series itself is an example of the effects a franchise such as Star Trek has on fans and followers and, in this case, the internet community. Therefore it should be kept on a site that promotes learning. decapattack_uk 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It has an IMDB entry and is covered in non-Star Trek blogs. I'd say it's notable enough Sumergocognito 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich

Wikipedia is not an indistriminate collection of information. A bet between two scientists is not important enough for its own article. Notable only to fans of Simon or Ehrlich. Has sufficient coverage in those articles - delete KleenupKrew 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• withdrawing nomination and retreating somewhere to Eat Crow. Would not have thought a bet like this was notable but apparently it is. KleenupKrew 02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and note that the article consists almost entirely of quoted material. Peyna 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm change my vote to abstain, but I'll still move for a cleanup. Peyna 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As arcane as this may appear to you, it is not arcane to those in the field. This was a substantive event and the conclusions drawn from the outcome of the bet is of regular interest to students and scholars alike. The article is well cited and by no means a stub. Additionally the topic contains far more information than would be appropriate as an insert into either or both men's articles. Kershner 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a genuine historical event, and a decently documented and footnoted one. As far as significance, I think the article does a decent job of expressing that in context. -Markeer 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A significant event that deserves an article. --Bduke 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It would be redundant to have a full account in both biographies. This is one of the more famous wagers in science, and very well known in the field of population, peak oil, etc. It is notable and verifiable. -Will Beback 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a layman (in political science and economics at least), and I've heard of this; it represents a significant empirical check to Malthusian "millenialism," so to speak, and seems worthy of mention. Choess 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sometimes a bet between scientists is notable, such as the between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne and John Preskill regarding evaporating black holes. Tachyon01 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Query I am not familiar with that particular bet, can you point me to an article that goes into greater detail on that subject? ... Point proven.  :) (And I'm serious about desiring more information) Kershner 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You could make it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's odd that there's no article on it, and it's only mentioned briefly in the John Preskill article. The only thing I remember is that Hawking was betting only as an insurance policy: he very much wanted black holes to exist, and figured betting against their existance would provide some minor consolation if they did not, in fact, exist. When Hawking admitted defeat (thereby accepting the existance of black holes) he awarded Kip a year's subscription to Playboy. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Found the article: Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet Kershner 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My mistake: the bet I was thinking of was just between him and Thorne, and is mentioned in the Hawking article just below the one mentioned above. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't see any major problems with the article. David L Rattigan 08:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I wish Ehrlich would'vr stuck to butterflies. His scaremongering has done more harm than good. -- GWO
• Keep, extremely notable, easily verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable historical event (anecdotally, I've even seen a blurb about this event in an economic textbook), but (rightly) contains too much detail to be integrated into the primary articles about the principal actors in the event. -- Docether 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong (almost Conan-like) Keep. Notable only to fans of Simon or Ehrlich.? Notable well beyond that narrow spectrum; it was a significant prediction of the impact of 'Reaganomics' and the economic situation of the time, and culturally significant. Umm ... (calms down) ... also per above keeps. Colonel Tom 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, event is notable, verifiable, this topic is encyclopedic. --Terence Ong 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable historical event. SJennings 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as a notable event which people might actually want to research. —Mets501^talk 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although I'd be extremely open to a rename (Simon-Ehrlich wager, perhaps). This is a hugely notable bet. I saw a documentary about it in a geography course I took this term. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I second the rename. Kershner 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per Savisan. ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict?) Keep and rename. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per savisan. redfox 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Rename. Absolutely not fancruft as suggested by nom Bwithh 23:18, 6 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 – Gurch 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bum Rushing

Non-notable term. May be hoax King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Already covered at Wiktionary under bum rush. Peyna 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Move to Wiktionary. This is a legitimate and common slang term used by many gamers to describe exactly the behavior noted. That does not justify a Wikipedia article but it does belong in a dictionary under the verb 'to Bum Rush'. At some point the original meaning of the term (as per much of slang and gamer-speak) was lost in favor of this meaning. Kershner 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the original meaning of the phrase "Bum's rush (quickly and/or forcibly removed from the premises as if one were a 'bum') has been lost except to those under the age of 16. At any rate, I didn't see much difference between what this article describes and the more succinct definition covered at the Wiktionary article I linked, except that they're applying that definition to the world of video games. Peyna 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitionary. Tachyon01 04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is absolutely not a hoax. It's a legitimate tactic. The term is used in popular culture - see Yo! Bum Rush the Show, an album by Public Enemy. The article needs a cleanup. If it survives AfD I'll clean it up myself. - Richardcavell 05:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki delete as below -- GWO
• Delete and do not transwiki. There's already an article there, at bum rush. Please don't treat Wiktionary as a dumping ground. Proto||type 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article far exceeds the wiktionary entry in scope and definition, and has various cultural significances. By the way, I've added PE's album to the article's introduction. Colonel Tom 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, more than a dicdef, but article needs to be cleanup. Bum Rush has been used in pop culture as what Richardcavell said. --Terence Ong 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, basically just consisting of the same definition written several times and a couple of specific examples. —Mets501^talk 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much more than dictdef, and already present at wikt:bum rush. Reference to video games is probably WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete could not agree more with Proto. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- I would have said transwiki to Wiktionary, but it's already there. Reyk _YO! 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notable term, but the is essentially a dictionary definition. Ace of Sevens 09:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Proto and Peyna; dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a non-notable dicdef. By the way, in my region it's called a "bomb rush". Grandmasterka 04:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN dicdef Deleuze 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Longhurst

fails to assert notability, vanity page? Almost no information. Adambiswanger1 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete for little or no content, besides no assertion of notability NawlinWiki 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Tagged for speedy. If it does not assert notability, feel free to put a {{db-bio}} tag on it instead of AfD. Peyna 01:30, 6 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 and redirect to Total Wine & More. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Beverage

Not notable company, does not meet WP:Corp, the only reason I have heard of it is because I used to live in Maryland. MilesToGo 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a real store. If this were a store in the Star Trek universe, it would be speedily kept. Let's keep this if only to help prevent fiction from becoming more important than reality in Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Total Wine & More. Company does no exist anymore so a merge rather than keep. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Peripitus. JIP | Talk 08:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Total Wine & More, defunct companies are not exactly notable in its own article, unless they were a multinational corporation. --Terence Ong 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. —Mets501^talk 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Wine & More (2nd nom)

Not notable company, does not meet WP:Corp, the only reason I have heard of it is because I used to live in Maryland. MilesToGo 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed this AfD for MilesToGo, who used Afd1 instead of Afdx. What changed since the first nom, which was "Keep" and pretty recently? Suggest explanation, or withdrawal of nom. In the absense of such, Speedy Keep. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Wine & More - first nom. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - too soon since the last nom and nothing seems to have changed. Seems to meet WP:CORP - 144.135.0.64 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC) - (forgot to log in) - Peripitus (Talk) 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly large retail store chain. I'd say it passes WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly notable and meets WP:CORP. --Terence Ong 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. —Mets501^talk 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the above comments, meets WP:CORP guidelines plus previous consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, and block creator indefinitely. DS 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kara Kluver

Delete hoax deprodded by creator. Zero google hits for "Quadratic Relativity Theory". - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy per nom, nonsense.--Andeh 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Tagged for speedy. We need a {{db-hoax}} since nonsense doesn't really apply. Peyna 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For reference: "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." Peyna 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Super Crazy Awesome Speedy Delete...per nom...Yanksox 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I prodded this (as it doesn't qualify for a speedy) but I'm not gonna' fight about it if it does go speedily. Kotepho 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's not CSD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy removed since it's not applicable. Nice little article but unfortunately all false. After spending considerable time researching Kara Kluver (well one minute on google), I've determined that she is 18 from Oregon. Here is her Myspace page [5]. Strangely enough there is no discussion there of her many accomplishments. Way to go KK... --JJay 02:50, 6 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Tyne

non-notable actor, fails WP:BIO. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• He played Clyde the Clarinetist Guitarist, how can you say he's not notable? - Delete ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom —Mets501^talk 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Who the heck is Clyde the Clarinetist? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oops wrong instrument ~ trialsanderrors 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete It's not his movies that make him notable. I didn't even know he did movies. You can delete his movie works off this article, that is not why he's notable. He's notable for his invisible theater work that he's been exploring in the New York City area. Actually I think it would be a better article if it didn't mention his film at all and a stub was added for his experimental theater work was added. What stub would this be?--In Defense of the Artist 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Also pretty invisible. Got any offlist leads? ~ trialsanderrors 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, that's part of the issue with Invisible Theater is that they don't go around advertising themselves. I found out about him through his work at Rising Sun Performance Company, but I know he's also worked with Improv Everywhere and Hella Bell. I can probably get something from Rising Sun if you want to read it offline.--In Defense of the Artist 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  So there's no newspaper or magazine that wrote about him? To be included in Wikipedia, his influence has to be verifiable through tertiary sources. ~ trialsanderrors 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  From what I read on the terms of service the definition of notable was an audience or circulation of 5,000 people or more which can be verified from the documentations of his work through the companies in which he worked. --In Defense of the Artist 04:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm, this might still fall short of WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocketboom

Delete or Merge with Andrew Baron non notable video blog which recieved only brief attention. Subject is not encyclopedic and article does not establish notability - blogs are not notable regardless of media coverage they're soapboxes and Wiki is not advertisement for them. Seems like an advertisement. Strothra 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Aside from being hugely popular and the first Vlog to sell advertising, Rocketboom has been the subject of substantial media coverage [6] [7]. ScottW 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's another reference, in case there's any doubt [8]. ScottW 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable[9], written about in such newspapers as The Wall Street Journal, Slate, The Sunday Times. --Pmsyyz 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Key citations remain missing, notably regarding who says these guys are so important. It's a question whether it's actually encyclopedic or not, not whether it got its 15 minutes of fame. Tychocat 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:WEB. Has received significant media coverage as shown above. Capitalistroadster 07:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above, the vlog is notable and has received significant media coverage, and comparisons of daily viewers to cable shows. What I'm skeptical of (and I'm a blog advocate) is the separate article Amanda Congdon; I don't think she's individually notable, keeping in mind that Ana Marie Cox didn't get a separate entry from Wonkette until she published a book and "retired". --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. It has received a lot of coverage in the traditional media and has a wide following. Moreover, I think the WP:WEB criteria should be updated to mention how to treat cases like this where the fact that this is available via a web site is mostly incidental. It is a separate broadcast medium - for example, I don't use a web browsers to access it, I use the Democracy Player and so it is more like a TV show. Thus the criteria for Wikipedia inclusion ought to be more those governing TV shows than web sites. - Hayne 08:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The cited Wikipedia pages WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE are all about improving the quality of articles, not about deleting them if a set of criteria aren't met. This article seems quite noteworthy. __meco 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, meets WP:WEB, it had media coverage, notable blog. --Terence Ong 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If most people were asked to name a vlog that they have heard of, it would likely be this one. youngamerican (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

comment. That brings up the interesting aspect of some of this notability argumentation. Most people haven't heard of vlogs at all, so does that make it more likely that such a site isn't notable? __meco 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, that's a good question, though I think there's certainly room for articles surrounding topics that may not be known to the world at large. I think vlogs should generally be held to the same standard as a regular blog, which should be a reasonably high standard. In this case, the mainstream media coverage and the fact that Rocketboom has been out at the front in development of a certain type of vlog is more than enough to meet my threshold for notability. However, what about the case in which the vlog/blog is particlularly well known in the blogging community, but has limited outside coverage? See the Chuck Olson discussion for example of one of these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Olsen. In this case, I thought it wasn't notable enough, at least for now . ScottW 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd heard of vlogs, and am familiar with them. For me it remains the difference between having 15 minutes of fame, and being notable, and my vote is unchanged. However, the upgrade in documentation (to my mind, mostly 'me-too' news releases) helps make the thing at least look encyclopedic. Tychocat 04:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue the opposite. The addition of documentation adds notability but it does not make the article or subject encyclopedic. Rocketboom is a blog and such things are impermanent not to mention they appeal to only small portions of individuals. I could see an argument for its notability or encyclopedic importance to a subculture but that in itself, in my view, rules out its importance. --Strothra 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Citations and references have been added. Pepso 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep lots of media coverage (read an article about it a few weeks ago in Wired (magazine), passes WP:WEB. --TorriTorri 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known, popular and significant. Alexander256
• Strong Keep Just because you, a rank and file user say's it's non notable in your nomination, does not make it so. Stop being a deletionist!--Nick Dillinger 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

haha Stop being an inclusionist! --Strothra 17:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Understanding the growth of vlogging requires an understanding of notable examples, such as rocketboom.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Wildeman

Article about a high school art teacher. One of a series of articles created or edited by students at the University of Chicago Laboratory schools to add basically nonsense about various students and faculty. The claim to notability here is that he is a moderately successful Abstract Expressionist. I can find no evidence of this claim. ScottW 02:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:BIO --Strothra 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable as they come. Opabinia regalis 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Strothra. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like hoax. ~ trialsanderrors 04:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO... and hoax. - Motor (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Terence Ong 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN-bio —Mets501^talk 17:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 04:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primax 3

Delete per WP:NOT, specifically advertising and promotion. But that's not all, this might even be a "hoax ad." It appears that this product might not exist[10]. Well, I need to refine my searching ability. Yanksox 02:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It is not a hoax, it is mentioned at Petronas' website, but it is not notable. --Ezeu 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisment/spam. Tachyon01 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like WP:SPAM to me... -- Scientizzle 08:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, even if it's not a hoax it's spam. - Motor (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. --Terence Ong 14:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM —Mets501^talk 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article creator has made it less like an ad recently, but there's no evidence of product notability per WP:CORP. Grandmasterka 04:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trumalia

Fails WP:WEB, i.e. not notable —WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per original nomination. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an advertisement. Tachyon01 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tachyon01 Percy Snoodle 09:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; fails WP:WEB. Will possibly pass the notability test in the future, but does not now. Colonel Tom 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM —Mets501^talk 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wrote this not realizing that it was objectionable in any way. It's my first contribution and am a bit discouraged as I read the guidelines and thought I was meeting them. Can I edit this so that it won't get deleted? I was looking on the search engine page and having come across this search engine last week wanted to add it because I thought it was unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenymonkey (talk • contribs)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was withdrawn. (Please see original nominator's withdrawal of nomination [11]). — Mike • 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The AfD had already reached concensus before it was withdrawn. JRP 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That really doesn't matter; a withdrawal is a withdrawal is a withdrawal. — Mike • 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: New Voyages

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft, per Star Trek: Mirror Wars, Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, Star Trek: Spock's Hiatal Hernia, etc., etc., ad nauseum. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this particular nomination. — Mike •  19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks notable and verifiable to me, especially given the involvement of D. C. Fontana and Walter Koenig. --Allen 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that we want to delete the fancruft, however this may be the only Star Trek fan fiction that I think merits inclusion in Wikipedia, due to the large number of professional Star Trek actors and writers which are participating in it. JRP 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is the only one of these Star Trek parodies/fan productions I had ever heard of before tonight. It has gained tons of notice inside the Star Trek community and elsewhere. BigDT 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Important enough to worth an article Roadrunner 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Koenig's involvement. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, you have about a minute between the timestamps on some of your Star Trek-related AFD votes. Are you examining the actual topic/article or are you just voting delete without any effort to check to see whether the particular article warrants inclusion? BigDT 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have checked out each article. Quit trying to undermine me by suggesting I'm not doing my homework. Erik the Rude 04:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, he probably did what I sometimes do. I examine a group of pages throughly, then then come back and AFD them once I've got a view of the situation. Timestamps are not evidence for this kind of accusation. - Motor (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm (AND endorsed by the Roddenberry estate), I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for professional involvement ... this is not fancruft. Daniel Case 03:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable fan series which has had appearances by former Star Trek cast members (i.e. Walter Koenig.) Tachyon01 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why do you have the "prepare for ballot stuffing" comment? There's none of that going on here and I think we've demonstrated the beginning of a concensus that this one should stay. I wonder somehow if that isn't somehow wishful thinking on your part. Please don't take these things personally; this one may stay but many of the others that you nominated probably should go. JRP 05:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• See the accompanying edit description for link to a diff in which an above voter solicits ballot-stuffing from a relevant WikiProject. I wouldn't put it up just for the heck of it. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - well-respected fan series --Polaron | Talk 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This one is a major production that is notable on several levels, from being approved by Roddenberry's estate to being written by noted SF authors, to having cast members from the original series appearing on it. 23skidoo 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This fan series seems to be a few rungs over the normal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. fancruft at least, a cynical marketing tool for the Trek franchise at best. Tychocat 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like a popular series. "Not allowing fiction to take over Wikipedia" does not equal "all fiction must systematically be removed from Wikipedia". JIP | Talk 08:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of all the fan series this is one to keep. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this is THE Star Trek fan series that has even enjoyed guest stars from the original shows. If any fan produced material is notable then this is it. Ben W Bell talk 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I absolutely do not think this was a bad faith nomination (as was suggested above) because Wikipedia has vast tracts of fancruft that need clearing out... but in this case, I think it *just* manages to justify an article. - Motor (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Guest star involvement swings it. Just. -- GWO
• Strong Keep - Not just some random fan fiction. This stuff is big, and was featured on the cover of Wired magazine --DennyCrane 09:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Definately one of the biggest fan films out there. JusticeCEO 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This series has a lot of support from Trek veterans (And other pros) from both sides of the camera. It was notable enough to be on the cover of "Wired", it was mentioned on "Talk Soup" and was featured on G4. Also, it's very popular with the last sull-length episode being downloaded 16 million times.

• Oops, forgot to sign. That last comment was by me.--Captain Proton 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, widely known project with major actors (Koenig, William Windom) NawlinWiki 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known and has received a great deal of media attention, and is a major event in Star Trek fandom. Nick Cook 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; Slap me purple and call me a meat puppet, but this is notable IMO. See above for less 'colourful' arguments. Colonel Tom 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. SJennings 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable fan film, this is also another exception, getting media attention is more than notable. If it was featured on the cover of "Wired" magazine and downloaded 16 million times, the film is definitely notable. --Terence Ong 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not that my vote is needed obviously but this article definatly is not fancruft. The support alone from the actors says enough. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely a notable subject with major actors participating, and noted within articles in recognized media (as is Star Trek: Hidden Frontier and a few others). --Mhking 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the most notable of all the Trek fan series, as evidenced by the Roddenberry stamp of approval, the involvement of original series cast and crew, and the major media coverage. TheRealFennShysa 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. — Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable fan project. The Wookieepedian 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep How many professional, original series actors does a fan film have to be before it's notable? My answer: fewer than this one. Vadder 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable fan project, with professional participation. (Not that my vote is needed.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep by analogy with WP:MUSIC per GWO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Professional involvement (in addition to the several previously mentioned actors, they also have writers from cannon Trek), use of set pieces by Star Trek: Enterprise, featured in Wired and G4. -- Hawaiian717 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The only fan film that has the blessing and support of Eugene Roddenberry for the continuation of his fathers work.User:vtcrusade
• Weak Keep Making an exception here due to involvement of Eugene Roddenberry and professionals Bwithh 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipedical (talk • contribs) 23:23, June 6, 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The fanfilm which has very notable Sci-Fi writers/producers/directors involved, as well as the blessing of Eugene Roddenberry, and involvement of original Star Trek actors (William Wimbledom, Walter Koenig, George Takei and others). Also New Voyages is mentioned in the official Star Trek website as shown here: George Takei Video Interview wanderer 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Found this very interesting. and notable. Ghostieguide 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Voice of Treason 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per involvement of Fontana and Koenig, mass media attention, etc. Gildir 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Insanely strong keep - what's up with the mass deletions movement on clearly notable entries? DillPickle 21:35, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wreck

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. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of non-self-generated hits ... and it has been mentioned in the national and international media[12] [13] [14] [15] ... according to WP:MEME, mention in a reliable source outside of internet culture makes it notable ... so by virtue of the CNN mention, I'd say this one is an unquestionable keep BigDT 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The CNN mention makes this one open and shut. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is very unimportant stuff. Erik the Rude 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well good grief, so is most of Wikipedia. But the question is does it meet the notability guidelines for its genre and under the proposed guideline WP:MEME, it does. BigDT 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:MEME is only a proposed guideline, and I suspect it'll be a cold day in Hell when it becomes widely accepted. Erik the Rude 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the fact is that whether you accept WP:MEME or not, I found four media mentions without half trying. This is unquestionably notable within the European Star Trek community and has gained media attention outside that community. To me, that makes it notable. BigDT 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You'd be surprised. After all, I thought the same about CSD A7. Either way, you shouldn't be complaining, it meets WP:WEB too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per BigDT. Tachyon01 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, they apparently are reasonably known movies and the page is fine with links. - Cribananda 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable fan movie series. JIP | Talk 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable where other series are not. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable to the extent that it has been mentioned several times in Finnish mainstream media and given Finnish mainstream cultural awards[16]. Thus, this is notable not only as scifi fandom stuff, but also notable as modern Finnish culture.Punainen Nörtti 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Popularity pushes it over the edge. Just. -- GWO
• Weak keep, a fair amount of coverage... so it just about makes it. It also makes a useful bucket for stuff from the "Wreck"-cruft articles that need cleaning out. - Motor (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Popular and highly notable piece of independent moviemaking. Nick Cook 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable film, different from the rest. --Terence Ong 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Requires cleanup, though. Molerat 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very notable (even just in the digg/slashdot screentime it recieved), I believe it was the most downloaded film online for a while -- Tawker 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly notable enough. Even if the individual movies don't get articles, give the series one. Vadder 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. CNN reference, etc., etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, if it were music it would fail WP:MUSIC, same for porn, books, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Music passes WP:MUSIC, if it statisfies one of the following

Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.

Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning has been broadcast in the Finnish national TV.

Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).

See BigDT's comment above. See also [17] (from Aamulehti, Valo-liite), [18] (Keskisuomalainen), [19] (Savon sanomat), [20] (Turun sanomat, treffi-liite), [21] (Helsingin sanomat), [22] (IT-viikko)

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Star Wreck is the most prominent representative of Finnish science fiction cinema.Punainen Nörtti 08:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I would say the series is notable primarily for spawning Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, it may be appropriate to merge it into that instead. -- Hawaiian717 19:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion
• Keep per above. Seems to have plenty of mentions in media to be credible as an article. Voice of Treason 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above - Mentions in magazines, and quite a bit of viral popularity in Finland and elsewhere. Easily among the more notable ST fan works. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mauro Bieg 08:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep : absolutely intresting story behind the development of the series, and the last movie is absolutely worth being in Wikipedia Malo Supremo 10:55, 8 June 2006 (GMT) — page history shows this signature signed by 212.45.98.77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• Keep, one of the few examples of fan-created material that has become notable itself. Kusma (討論) 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A more obvious keep is hard to find. It is definatly notable with 270 000 google hits and mentions in established media. Jeltz talk 10:47, 11 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, but any chance of putting those sources in the article? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Exeter

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - the only media mention I see paging through google is Slashdot [23] ... there are tons of Google hits, but per WP:MEME, g-hits alone are not sufficient. So I say delete unless someone can find other evidence of notability. BigDT 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE AND REDIRECT to USS Exeter 70.51.8.60 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This has been noted in the fan community but is not as highly regarded as New Voyages or Star Wreck. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- GWO
• Strong delete, as non-notable fancruft. "has been noted in the fan community" can be used to justify the inclusion of anything at all. It needs notability outside of a small collection of super-fans. - Motor (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This series is second only to New Voyages in production value and sports strong stories and original characters. JusticeCEO 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you seriously suggesting this home movie is known to all Star Trek fans? That's what your appeal to Guinness World Records is suggesting? It doesn't matter how big the superset is, a tiny subset of them is still a tiny group of people. -- GWO
• Keep This is hardly "non-notable" having been featured in the Star Trek Fan Club Magazine, and recieved a lot of attention when it was first released. Their second film was written by TNG writer Dennis Bailey. Nick Cook 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable GassyGuy 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic is rarely suitable for wikipedia articles... unlike Star Trek: Hidden Frontier which is minorly notable strictly for the fact that it has run 7 episodes seasons (typo), this series has produced a whopping 1 episode, with 1 more on the way. Nothing in the article or on this discussion qualifies this as worthy of an article.--Isotope23 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's really nothing in this article that makes it any more notable than any other fanfic. -- Kicking222 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable fan film. Vadder 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm afraid I don't see adequate evidence of notability, although I could be convinced otherwise. (Production values are not important.) References in mainstream or even entertainment publications would move it to a clear Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cinescape, Flak Magazine, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and USA Today have all published articles on Starship Exeter. I beleive there are others, but I can't recall them all off the top of my head. Nick Cook 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per User:Kicking222; as music would fail WP:MUSIC, same for books, born, sport, &c. "Very notable fan film" is tautological in my idiolect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as yet more Trekcruft. Nowhere near notable outside a small circle of dedicated Trekkies. Seriously, there's got to be another Wiki for this sort of thing. Stop burdening the 'pedia with it. Reyk _YO! 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as "silly". Or if that's not acceptabe, let's use the ohrase "non-notable fancruft". Vizjim 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable trekcruft Bwithh 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are good citations of "Cinescape, Flak Magazine, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and USA Today" articles about this production. If that level of verifiable proof can be established, I will change to keep. Ziggurat 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Changed vote to Keep per Flak magazine, Sci Fi Wire, IMDB, and especially the Star Tribune article (cached version here). This satisfies WP:V and WP:WEB. Ziggurat 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Flak Magazine http://www.flakmag.com/film/exeternemesis.html Cinescape http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&action=page&obj_id=37390&type_id=270286&cat_id=270355&sub_id=0 Sci Fi Wire http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-01/07/08.30.fandom USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/hotsites/2003/2003-02-11-hotsites.htm There were other media outlets, but those links are no longer active. Nick Cook 06:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Criteria 1 of WP:WEB excludes "* Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." In addition, the NOTE associate with this WP:WEB criteria says: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." - Motor (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Minneapolis Star Tribune article was a major one, unfortunately it is no longer available online. The Star Trek Communicator article was a fairly extensive article, but that is only available in print. The St Paul Pioneer Press published an extensive article, but that is no longer available online either. All of these articles were written by persons "independant of the subject itself." It's had decent exposure, is fairly well known, and was so before New Voyages. Nick Cook 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition the IMDB listings are easily found. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478893/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0466584/ Nick Cook 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep google search had over 28,000 hits and returned references in Flak Mag and IMDB listing. Flak mag was a review, not just publishing a project press release. It was also once the Sci-Fi channels site of the week. There were enough links to convince this is very well known within Star Trek fandom as well. It seems notable enough. Ace of Sevens 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per articles/listing in notable online and print publications TransUtopian 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As a TV writer/producer with credits on Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Insurrection, The Dead Zone, Wildfire and other productions, I personally consider Starship Exeter to be the most notable and most professionally produced tribute series on the Internet. I know several professional Hollywood writers and producers who follow the series regularly (and eagerly await Act 3 of The Tressaurian Intersection). The production values are second to none. I personally prefer it over New Voyages. The project's notability certainly goes well beyond the fan community. - Eric A. Stillwell EStillwell 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep - I have to wonder if we would be going through this if the words Star Trek weren't attached to the front of this article (and the other recent related AfD nominations), based on how much certain individuals are motoring around trying to justify legitimate press coverage as substandard or unacceptable. TheRealFennShysa 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Star Trek series. --JJay 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - these guys were getting noticed long before the New Voyages people. DillPickle 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• "Keep" - It is a thing done by people and is therefore worthy of note. I take exception to the people who think that using major publications as "justification". As an amateur screenwriter, I'll let you know that by saying you require some corporate newspaper or magazine to justify this for you, you're insulting tens of thousands of writers, directors, actors, cinematographers, et cetera, the world over who have never had their productions appear in some publication. James J. Champlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.29.3 (talk • contribs) 00:08, June 13, 2006
  • reply An impassioned statement here does nothing to affect notability and verifiability guidelines. If you dislike them, you need to take action elsewhere to combat them. — Mike • 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Verifiability is a policy; as long as it is a policy it should be followed, even when consensus is against it. On the other hand, notability is just a guideline. That means that the community can come to a consensus to disregard it any time it sees fit. In this case, I don't even think we need to do that, since the subject of the nominated article is sufficiently notable to survive any reasonable challenge. Vadder 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Query about the entire process Is there a Wikipedia policy against all non-professional films? If this entry is to be deleted for being a fan film, then ergo so much all other entries on such items. Or is it noteworthiness and existing media attention that are the criteria? Or is it that the article as written is not as informative as should be for an encyclopediac entry? I do not see as valid comparisons of the merit of the films in question to other fan films. Popularity and perceived quality are poor criteria for whether or not something is worthy for inclusion. -- M. Molyneaux 67.170.221.224 06:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• People seem to be arguing about our notability guidelines, such as WP:WEB.--Chaser T 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see that it meets any of our notability guidelines. I'm also curious why all of these fan communities and articles don't do more work at Memory-Alpha and related projects. You'd earn less scorn and AfD's over there. If this has been discussed somewhere, I'd be eager to read it.--Chaser T 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should they be scorned - that's rather strong wording don't you think? Because they are fan films? Because they are Star Trek? Because they are given away for free so you can't affix a price to them? Because they publicly admit to being a minor infringement of Copyright and Trademark? Because the very real benefits they give the IP owners in return are ignored? Because they represent an embarrassing reminder of civil libertarian questions posed by electronic media?
  • ALL of those points make these fan films worthy of note NOT scorn. Oh, and Memory Alpha? They have started a page but it is in danger of AfD because they aren't Canon! You people are trying to bar us because we're too Trekkie and they're wanting to bar us because we aren't Trekie enough! it'd be funny if it didn't fly in the face of objectivity and fair dealing--Kirok of L'Stok 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, I didn't say the articles were worthy of scorn, I was just commenting on the votes in the many AfD's that were brought up a week ago. In any case, thanks for answering my question.--Chaser T 18:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even more non-notable fanfilms Deleuze 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So do you mean that THIS fan film is non-notable or ALL fan films are non-notable. What makes you say that it is non-notable after reading the above? Which fan film is more notable than Starship Exeter in your opinion? You have seen it haven't you? Or are you condemning it sight unseen? I'd really like you to share your critique with us - As Gene Hendricks of "Tales of the Seventh Fleet" pointed out one time, fan film producers are used to getting negative feedback but it is welcome if it is specific so that improvements can be made.--Kirok of L'Stok 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this clearly fails WP:WEB in my mind. Deleuze 23:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • How so? Please be specific. The people who are voting to keep this and all the other articles that have been bulk AfD'd are giving detailed and verifiable responses whereas the majority of the deletes are value judgements ("fancruft" indeed! <snort>) by people who are not backing them up with examples. What happened to verifiability? The least we can expect is that you will grace us with specific instances that we might see the error of our ways.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment is this AfD going to be closed soon? It appears to be a no consensus keep to me (I'm biased, obviously, as I voted keep!). Ziggurat 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By my rough count, 16 deletes, 14 keeps, 1 merge, 1 neutral as of the timestamp on this line. — Mike • 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope whoever tallies the votes will look into the posting histories of some voters. After a cursory inspection, a large number of those voting keep appear to have few or no votes outside of the recent crop of AfDs. Deleuze 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's a concern of yours, it's not out of line for you to note it yourself. Just do it like this:

• Person's Vote
  • this vote is this user's first edit
  • or
  • this is this user's 10th edit; the other 9 were also AfDs
  • or
  • whatever clerical note is appropriate — but should be worded completely neutrally

And so on. — Mike • 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Could someone please explain what this has to do with the validity of a persons vote? Am I to infer that the vote of someone who has voted on many AfD's will be given more weight than the vote of someone who knows something about the subject? So that it is more important to be a scholar of Wikipedia than an expert on fan films? So that the opinion of, for example, Eric A. Stillwell "a TV writer/producer with credits on Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Insurrection, The Dead Zone, Wildfire and other productions" will be given less weight than the honeourable Deleuze, who I am assuming from his post is a frequenter of AfD's? I can respect that there is a need for woodcutters in a forest but I most certainly hope that they will NOT be given any greater standing than those who plant and tend the forest. Is this Wikipedia policy? I know it is not a democracy, but gimme a break!--Kirok of L'Stok 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

AfDs are not straight votes. A lot of new or anonymous votes would indicate ballot stuffing. Please review WP:DEL and assume good faith. Deleuze 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it, I am talking logic here. I assumed that AfDs were not straight votes, however if this were so then it would mean that all this hoohaa about "ballot stuffing" would be background noise wouldn't it? This also means that Mike's countup of votes on 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) is useless. I can also assume that a vote that does not reference specific instances and examples to support it will be given less weight than one which does? Good! Then I feel that ayes have it! Since all we have had from the nays seem to be unreferenced and unsupported opinions like "this clearly fails WP:WEB in my mind." and the classic "Star Trek fancruft.". Unless you have some verifiable instances and not opinions?--Kirok of L'Stok 11:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the original Exeter production predates some of the more well known fanfilms out, but that should not diminish its significance. Unfortunately, since I am a newly registered user of Wikipedia after editing for years anonymously, some appear prepared to automatically discount my vote because I haven't been a member long enough. user:MDonfield

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article itself makes two assertions of notability - it was shown at a major sci-fi convention and it was featured in a BBC documentary. BigDT 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The BBC documentary sold me. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic, and not everything mentioned on TV needs to end up in Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 03:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If it's good enough to be in a BBC documentary, it's good enough to be called notable. joturner 04:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The {{afdnewbies}} template seems a bit pre-emptive and unnecessary. In fact, you're just asking for ballot-stuffing. joturner 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Votes have been solicited — diff link is in the edit description. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment So wipe the comment off the talk page - heck, I'll do it myself BigDT 05:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, this doesn't seem particularly notable. JIP | Talk 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. BBC notability claim unsourced and dubious. -- GWO
• Delete, not notable, per GWO. - Motor (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Tepid Delete - does not appear to be overly notable, especially when compared to more notable fan films. --Mhking 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic is rarely suitable article material, and this is no exception.--Isotope23 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • inactive on Wikipedia since February - all new contibutions have been only in currect crop of Trek AfDs
• Delete, fancruft, if BBC featured that film, sources is needed, non-notable after all. --Terence Ong 14:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep BBC mention + its was mentioned on Futurama. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm in the process of researching a documentary on the fanfilm genre, and this film is one of the more popular films from the pre-WWW era - that alone is going to make showing some of these early references (such as an article on the film I saw in Starlog back in the late 80s) difficult, since the film was made in 1988, and essentially predates the World Wide Web. However, some Usenet references to the BBC airing are here and here. The film is definitely notable. TheRealFennShysa 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a well-known fan film. Everybody I know in fan circles has heard of it. Vadder 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this isn't a fan circle, it's an encyclopedia— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • New user - sole contributions have been initiating or voting in fan-related AfDs
• Keep. Won a film festival. That's all it needs. Kafziel 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No. It didn't. It won a film award at a SciFi convention. Big difference. -- GWO

That's not a big difference at all. It's an independent, notable convention. More than enough. Kafziel 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sci-fi convention = film festival? Sorry kids, that math just doesn't work...--Isotope23 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant delete. The SciFi convention is notable, but its film program may not be, and the BBC reference is unsourced and does not apparently appear on google. (Google groups doesn't count.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see why it shouldn't, since it was a public post made by the film director, who would have known. There's some corroboration here, matching up with the description in Johnson's 1996 post mentioning the special, although the BBC catalogue doesn't list everything included in the special. TheRealFennShysa 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Even if those sources aren't acceptable for reliability, they should still be acceptable for establishing notability. Vadder 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a short clip on "Star Trek Night" on BBC2 does not establish notability, that would, at least, have meant showing the whole thing (and I'm more than happy to accept usenet as a reliable source in this instance). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete- more Trekcruft. Slightly less non-notable than other Trekcruft nominated recently, but still not encyclopedic in my opinion. Reyk _YO! 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete silly nonnotable trekcruft Bwithh 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. - Hahnchen 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets the guidelines for inclusion. DillPickle 21:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn cruft Deleuze 14:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tales of the Seventh Fleet (second nomination)

(See also, first AFD)

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. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Is "fancruft" a valid reason for deletion? I don't remember seeing it in any of the wiki articles about the deletion process. Enquiring minds, and all that. JusticeCEO 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since none of these experts will answer your question Gene, I'll take a stab at it ..."It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.

Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." So Is this ...

• poorly written?
• unreferenced?
• unwikified?
• non-neutral?
• violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research?
  I think not--Kirok of L'Stok 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nobody voting to keep on the first AFD gave any evidence of notability and googling, I find no media mentions whatsoever and mostly self-generated hits. BigDT 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not encyclopedic, and notability should not be inherited from Star Trek. Erik the Rude 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, doesn't seem particularly notable either. JIP | Talk 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN fancruft compared to others. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Delete, not-notable. Move it to Memory Alpha if it isn't already there. - Motor (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This is series is tied for having the 2nd most episodes out after Hidden Frontier. It is also the only one made by members of a Star Trek fan club, making it notable. JusticeCEO 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ... for very small values of "notable" -- GWO
    • Sorry, I probably should have said "Notable amoung fan films." My apologies. JusticeCEO 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, You said that about all the rest as well. What specifically about this article is wrong?--Kirok of L'Stok 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is just as deserving as other fanfilms to be listed. Two films produced and third on the way. The Justice production team are the little ship that could. They have a dedicated following of fans, and their efforts should not simply be dismissed as fancruft. Nick Cook 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable GassyGuy 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Delete and merge" is an impossible vote. If the info is merged, the original article becomes a redirect. -- Kicking222 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Apologies, changed. SJennings 14:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable fancruft. -- Kicking222 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic is rarely suitable material for an article. Nothing distingusishes this project enough to make it worthy of an article.--Isotope23 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delte, fancruft. --Terence Ong 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - In order to follow the WP:WEB guidelines, I have added various links to independant websites where TotSF is mentioned. I believe this fullfills Criteria #1. JusticeCEO 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, having gone through the list of links that you added, you seem to have overlooked the "non-trivial published works" bit of that requirement (and one of them is a 404 not found). - Motor (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Please define non-trivial for me. Certainly Trek Today, Memory Alpha and Trek United are not non-trivial websites. JusticeCEO 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, that's exactly what they are. Are you really suggesting that inclusion in Memory Alpha should qualify something for wikipedia? *Bashes head against desk repeatedly*. -- GWO
        • Comment - No, I'm just saying that I don't know what is meant by non-trivial. By my standards, those sources are anything but trivial where the Star Trek Universe (of which this article is part) is concerned, but I don't know what the wiki definition is. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. JusticeCEO 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is entirely notable within the universe of fan-created film series.

--NJHeathen 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:WEB is not the right standard, the article is about the product, and in that case films, books, music and porn are the yardsticks; this product's twin wouldn't pass any of those standards for keepness, and the article doesn't even make any claim of notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- per Angus McLellan. Reyk _YO! 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Bwithh 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others above Deleuze 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:RadioKirk --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clan hcp

I'm not sure about this one. The clan is certainly not incredibly notable. Are there any guidelines on whether or not pc-game clans should be included ? Travelbird 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Generaly speaking clans or other online groups are not notable. There would have to be some significant and independed press coverage for us to have sources to write an article about them. --Hetar 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Although it seems that this discussion is still open, the article has been deleted. Would anyone care to explain why? ---Charles 04:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Radiokirk deleted it and stated 'WP:NOT MySpace'. I guess he speedy deleted under criterion A7. Will an admin please close this AfD? - Richardcavell 05:26, 6 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: with a clear consensus that this subject does not deserve its own article but not quite enough to merit outright deletion, merged into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier. Follow the redirect back if any more information than what I merged is desired for that article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voyages of the USS Angeles

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier - this topic obviously is not notable in and of itself, but it's probably worth a paragraph in the other article if indeed the other project was the successor to this one. BigDT 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, per above. JRP 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The things that members of a Star Trek fan club do to amuse themselves has to be one of the worst article topics I've ever heard of. I've seen more encyclopedic stuff speedily deleted. Erik the Rude 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only an influential fanfilm series, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. Also, merge was discussed previously, with a consensus to keep as a separate article. MikeWazowski 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Delete, not-notable... and enough with the accusations of bad faith please. Trying to bias an AFD by throwing around accusations like that is itself bad faith. There are large chucks of Wikipedia populated by articles created by fans on the most trivial subjects... we need regular sweeps through it to examine whether each article justified. - Motor (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, While this is a precursor to "Hidden Frontier" it was not made by the same people and is completely independant, thus deserving it's own page. JusticeCEO 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier.Delete, upon further reflection... a fan made film that is not even available to the public doesn't really merit a merge. Though if anyone wished to mention at Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, that would be acceptible. --Isotope23 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, non-notable. --Terence Ong 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep - based on past discussions. Merge was discussed several months ago, but consensus was to keep as separate article. TheRealFennShysa 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, then merge into Star Trek (Fan made productions)— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Star Trek: Hidden Frontier. Not clearly WP:V, but if Hidden Frontier is to be kept (as it should be), this deserves a paragraph. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; the number of trekkies does not make trekcruft any less crufty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral While I'm not opposed to keeping this one, I do agree there's an argument for merging it with the Hidden Frontier article. The information should be retained in some form though. Nick Cook 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks pretty unverifiable if the series was never redistributed beyond members. --maru (talk) contribs 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, as per the others. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- A fan film that nobody is ever going to get to see. That's about as non-notable as anything can ever possibly get. Reyk _YO! 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Deleuze 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wreck Asskicker

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability BigDT 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles like this are an embarassment to Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. JRP 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Delete not-notable. - Motor (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?

How many of the Deletes on this page are just Bots?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• • About as many as the keeps. How many of the deletes on this page come from long-term contributors who contribute on more than one subject, as opposed to single-TV-show pressure groups? -- GWO

I have no idea, but I would expect someone of such exalted stature to be able to give us exact and concise reasons for their opinions instead of computer-generated comments. Could you explain the logic of why the opinion of a "long-term contributor who contributes on more than one subject" is of more weight than a member of a "single-TV-show pressure group" or to be more precise, a fan. Do you perhaps have something against fandom and the encyclopedic knowledge that we have on our subject? Because in the absence of citations that is all you are giving us - an opinion.--Kirok of L'Stok 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You want reasons why someone who contributes only on Star Trek might not be the best judge of the global importance and notability of all things Star Trek? Does this really need spelling out? -- GWO

Do I weally have to ask again? I don't think a long-term contributor has any greater logical facility and certainly not a greater knowledge of the subject. I think that's why they call them fans, y'know.--Kirok of L'Stok 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Erik the Rude above SJennings 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fanfic is rarely suitable material for wikipedia articles and this is no exception. A merge to Star Wreck is also an option. Also, User:Kirok needs to read WP:AFG before making unfounded, unsupported, accustions of bot usage.--Isotope23 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You could well be right and it could be an accident that certain users use the exact same wording on every AfD. Mind you we could have different definitions of a Bot since WCityMike has pointed out that this Monobook thingy is a commonly used tool. Pity my most sophisticated tool is cut & paste. If your definition of a Bot is an automated programme that does multiple posts without further human intervention, then yes, I was out of line. Just how many keystokes does it take to create an AfD with one of these Monobook whatsis anyway? More than ten? Less than three? Enquiring minds want to know, unless its a secret? If this is not the place for my enquiry perhaps you could tell me where and who to ask? I weally, weally want to know.--Kirok of L'Stok 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I can't help you there. I do everything the old fashioned way; i.e. type it out, even if I say nearly the same thing every time... and since I hate to code, I never have messed with any customization.--Isotope23 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft, this one is not notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nearly speedy. No assertion of notability. Possible merge into Star Wreck, if that's kept. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; article makes no claims to notability as already noted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the ultimately unanswerable beauteous genius that is Erik the Rude's argument. Vizjim 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, despite what the keep vote has identically said for every last star trek fan article on wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 03:36, 7 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stone Trek

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Looks like a non-notable web comic. No real syndication, no alexa rank, and no reliable sources. --Hetar 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - plenty of self-generated hits, but no evidence of notability ... please note that while the words "stone trek" show up in a handful of news articles, none of them are talking about this comic BigDT 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 03:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - I call it as I see it - had you bothered to bring this up on a talk page, you might have had your concerns addressed before going on a wholesale deletion rampage. In the Trek community, these films you've targeted are notable, and those that AREN'T have already gone by the wayside in AfDs of their own. Now, to Stone Trek specificially, a Google search beings back over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series - it's obviously been talked about. SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [24], featured on G4TechTV [25], and is widely regarded as one of the better Flash cartoon series on the web. MikeWazowski 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • comment Well, that's really the point, isn't it? Any article is cherished enough to its own particular community (or WikiProject), and I'm sure in some sections of Trek fandom, various Flash videos and fan films are quite important to you. But AfD asks the Wikipedia community as a whole to comment. If these articles are truly as important as you say they are, then certainly they can stand and pass a consensus decision on notability on their own two legs. Now, as I'm rather sick of the ad hominem attacks, I'm off to go on a wholesale sleeping rampage. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - changing my opinion to keep based on MikeWazowski's links to media mentions of this cartoon BigDT 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see it as Wikipedia's mission to document every webcomic out there. There must be other Wikis for this sort of thing. Reyk _YO! 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable web comic. JIP | Talk 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Strong delete not-notable. A double whammy of flashcruft and trekcruft... and it fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable GassyGuy 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This is THE trek parody cartoon on the net. Worth keeping just for the "Star Trekkin'" episode. JusticeCEO 11:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable as both a fan-produced Star Trek parody, and as a flash-based web cartoon. --Mhking 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is nitpicky as hell, I know, but it's a flash cartoon, not a webcomic. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SJennings 14:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • inactive on Wikipedia since February - all new contibutions have been only in currect crop of Trek AfDs
• Delete, flash cartoon that does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I would suggest some people actually read the standards for WP:WEB - the SciFi.com and G4 references Wazowski linked, along with a plug from William Shatner's official site, easily satisfy condition #1. For condition #3, distribution independent of the creators, I found this and this for starters - all easily satisfying WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess it all depends on how you want to interpret "non-trivial" from condition #1, and "...well known..." from condition #3. Personally, I don't think it meets either criteria.--Isotope23 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and fancruft. --Terence Ong 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - at the moment, does not appear to be notable -- Tawker 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trekcruft— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • New user - sole contributions have been initiating or voting in fan-related AfDs
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB, even without the star trek connection. new vote below — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Hetar, NN webcomic; User:TheRealFennShysa's sites don't seem like notability to me per WP:WEB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - just out of curiosity, if being hosted on one of the largest Flash sites on the internet, plus (using Wazowski's links above) an article on the website of one major American cable network and story on another established cable network aren't good enough for you, what is? TheRealFennShysa 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A (paid, not free press) newspaper or general readership magazine review or interview would do me. If it's a notable production, it'll make the real papers rather than being limited to the incestuous, self-referential slashdotty world of skiffydom, flash animation and webfads. Otherwise it's no more notable than the work of film students. Given the self-selection bias issues of voters and the excessive reliance on Googling, I think it's only fair to demand much higher standards of notability for web-related cruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per Angus McLellan. Site of the Week? That's about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award. Which is to say, it isn't. - Hahnchen 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (into Star Trek (Fan made productions)) or Delete without prejudice unless notability is asserted in the article. The site may meet WP:WEB, but the article doesn't at the present time, nor for any revision that I've found this year. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It's times like these, when an absolutely non-notable "production company" with no verifiable credits and NO Google returns survives an AfD, and yet something clearly notable within a community with legitmate references get hammered as "cruft", that I really wonder what's going on here. Just because you don't like the fact that an article has valid references is no reason to discount them or discredit them. MikeWazowski 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - That example was an incredibly poor close. The outcome of that result is incorrect. How an AFD with what seems to be no keep votes is classed as no-consensus I cannot understand. - Hahnchen 04:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets the criteria for inclusion, from what I've read. It's a very funny series, and clearly has a following. DillPickle 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Flash fanfilms are not notable. Deleuze 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Clearly, people disagree - see this category for a whole mess of "non-notable" (including several actual on-air TV series) Flash cartoons... TheRealFennShysa 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Flash fanfilms are not notable? You perhaps have a resource that backs that personal opinion up? Since you have chosen to base your vote on a generalisation, I shall address those generalisations in my rebuttal. Fan films are certainly notable, as can be seen from this article[26] in The Guardian. Flash fan films in the Star Trek genre are a bit thin on the ground, "Stone Trek" is definately the leader, however newcomers like Chad Troftgruben, who hit the topical bone with "Enterprise Flashed" and "Ahoyager"[27], and John Hazard's[28] "Starship Exeter, the Animated Odyssey"[29]are making a mark. But of course your generalisation was that ALL flash fan films are not notable! Including the 2003 "Run Lieia Run" (which won awards in two film festivals), the Star Dudes films? Perhaps you are talking about "Broken Saints"[30] or "Xombie" which is arguably the best of the current crop scoring interviews in Fangoria[31], Rue Morgue[32], Horror Movies Online[33], Movies Online[34] and Newgrounds Mag [35]. Still not enough? How about the news of a movie deal[36]? Once again though, perhaps your experience as a Wikipedia scholar has given you insights into Flash fan films that a mere fan has missed, eh? Could you enlighten us?--Kirok of L'Stok 03:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diane Marchant

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely non-notable. Erik the Rude 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Delete, RIP Diane, but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article I'm afraid. - Motor (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Kirk/Spock. SJennings 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, nn. --Terence Ong 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, might be worth a mention in Kirk/Spock though —Mets501^talk 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Kirk/Spock. (Sorry, Diane, but WP:NOT a memorial.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Motor; and "passed away" makes me think this appeared somewhere else first. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Author of a fan fic. The fan fic could potentially be barely notable, the author isn't. Kevin_b_er 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fanfic author. JIP | Talk 14:15, 8 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 – Gurch 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuli Torssonen

• Delete. Vanity article, non-notable bio, Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely non-notable. Erik the Rude 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - directed the most popular movie ever made in Finland, and one of the biggest internet phenomenons and downloads of 2005. Absolutely notable. MikeWazowski 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment No reference in article to above claims. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • the most popular movie ever made in Finland What was its box-office gross? Was it more than The Man Without a Past or Leningrad Cowboys Go America? --Calton | Talk 07:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • For a film that was never released to theaters, you know as well as I do there is no box office gross, and as such, that qualifier is useless. However, this is from the Star Wrek: In the Pirkinning article: Within two months of the movie's Internet release, it was estimated that more than 2.9 million copies of the movie had been downloaded from the official site alone. In comparison, the most popular Finnish movie, Edvin Laine's The Unknown Soldier (1955) has a theatre attendance figure of 2.8 million (which, of course, doesn't include TV screenings, video sales and rentals from the past 50 years). The film's service provider, Magenta sites, reported over 2 petabytes of data transfers and estimated that actual amount of downloads, including all mirrors, would be in the range of 3.5 to 4 million. [37] - There's your reference, with documented links. TheRealFennShysa 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep or Merge into the main Star Wreck article. If he has no notability outside of his creation of Star Wreck, then I'm not sure that he really needs a full bio - merging useful content is sufficient. BigDT 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm seeing a lot of hyperbole with these things. Tychocat 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable person, well-written article. What's with all this hatred of Star Trek? JIP | Talk 08:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
• Merge into Star Wreck and delete. Re: JIP's comment. Clearing out non-notable fancruft from Wikipedia does not equal hating Star Trek. - Motor (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Star Wreck for now (or keep). May merit a separate article in the future, but for now he is only known for the series. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only reference on IMDB is to the Star Wreck fan movie. If that article is kept per previous VfD merge this article into that. SJennings 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wazowski. And Comment to WCityMike: I'd suggest you reread the articles you're nominating - I quote from this article: After 2 weeks of its release the movie had been downloaded over 1.5 million times, so it could be one of the most watched Finnish movies, especially outside Finland. The article needs to be updated, but the info is there. TheRealFennShysa 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Directed the most popular v. could be one of the = the difference. Lack of cites to same = WP:V = the difference. "Biggest Internet phenomenons and downloads of 2005" = no reference for same = WP:V = the difference. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-fan/cruft-maker— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep mentioned here[38]. That barely slips on WP:BIO Yanksox 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Star Wreck? (I don't think the additional movies deserve separate articles, so that he should go there.) Alternately, keep. per Yanksox. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MikeWazowski. Note he is also working on Iron Sky which appears to be non-Star Wreck related (and needs to be mentioned in this article). -- Hawaiian717 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Yanksox; article needs TLC as it's rather effusive at present. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Not quite abstaining, but I don't feel it needs a deletion. Either keeping or redirecting/merging, I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ridiculously strong keep. Are you kidding me? He produced, starred in, made the special effects for and edited what is most likely the most popular movie to ever come out of Finland. (It has already been downloaded at least 3.5 million times, as reported in Helsingin Sanomat, the largest Finnish newspaper about six months ago -- I wasn't able to track down how many more times it's been downloaded since then.) Yes, it's free to download from the internet, but that's not really the point; I think he easily passes WP:BIO on the "Multiple features in [...] national newspapers" front; the movie and Torssonen himself have gotten a lot of coverage in Finland. He's been on national TV more than once. He was just recently featured on the popular and influential Finnish IT business web publication digitoday.fi over the deal his production company made with HP. He gets over 40 000 Google hits (and his movie gets over six million of them). I mean, what exactly are we debating here? This is not some guy in a garage who makes a five-minute clip of crappy lightsaber combat for TheForce.net, he's pretty much responsible for a minor (inter)national phenomenon. Seriously. -- Captain Disdain 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But you have to understand he doesn't work for Paramount. JIP | Talk 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither does Aki Kaurismäki, so I fail to understand the relevance of that comment. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I was being sarcastic. The point was to illustrate that film directors should not be automatically considered non-notable just because they work independently and not for a major international studio. JIP | Talk 07:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I want to be absolutely clear on this -- the national significance is pretty big, here, and I don't think Americans or Brits really understand this unless I elaborate. Internationally, Torssonen is not a huge name, of course, and I'm not going to pretend that he's a household name in Finland, either. But as far as WP:BIO's requirements go, this one's a cinch. There's really no argument. He absolutely meets the criteria therein, as far as the publicity requirement goes. The "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" criterion is also fairly applicable, since his work is getting a relatively wide international audience -- previously, Finnish films have been internationally known for Aki Kaurismäki, and that's really just about it. Obviously, that's not registering at all on the Hollywood scale, but when it comes to Finland, that international audience is extremely significant on a number of levels, and it has certainly been noted as such in the media. I realize that a lot of people consider the film a crappy Trek parody, but quality is not the issue here at all. To compare him to, say, the thousands of Americans who make parodies or fan films that never really make a blip on the radar is just uninformed. If, say, Kevin Rubio (whose inclusion nobody really contests, I would imagine; at least that article has never been up for AfD) had been featured on CNN and Fox News, and Troops had been aired on a national American TV channel and gotten, say, in excess of fifty million viewers who then, went to work the next day and debated whether the movie was as good as Citizen Kane and representative of American moviemaking to foreigners, that would be a comparable level of fame... even if the general public couldn't really remember or care who Kevin Rubio was a couple of years later. Tempest in a teapcup, absolutely. But in a country that has a population of only about five million, shit like this just doesn't happen every week. Not even every decade. -- Captain Disdain 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Famous in Finland, Captain Disdain raises a good argument. JRP 14:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Captain Disdain. Furthermore, I see no evidence of vanity here. That sort of accusation should never be made without some serious proof. --JJay 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Not vanity, vanity. — Mike •  01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll take that as a bit of a vanity post since everyone here is aware of the guideline pages, particularly the unintentionally humorous and largely misbegotten vanity guideline. Instead of evasion,User WCityMike, why not expand on the reasoning behind your vanity claims? --JJay 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to know too. From all the information given in this AfD discussion, the reason could just as well be "I haven't heard of him", or "He's a fan". Could you give a specific, detailed explanation on why you think this article was written by Torssonen himself or a friend of his? JIP | Talk 11:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm starting to have a feeling that if Torssonen's film hadn't been a Star Trek parody, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. There are articles about smaller, less-known, not professionally funded indie film projects on Wikipedia, and no one is complaining about them. But I guess reading the words "Star Trek fan" triggers a reaction towards fancruft. JIP | Talk 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Star Wreck, his source of notability. Kusma (討論) 00:40, 10 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 in some form - considerable consensus for merging, but as that would require a different article structure I haven't attempted it myself. Merge tags added. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wreck 4½: Weak Performance

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - please see my comments about Star Wreck (link to AFD)- there are plenty of mainstream media articles about this series, including CNN. [39] It's unquestionably notable. BigDT 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck, if that one survives the AFD. Otherwise, delete. JRP 03:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic, even if it was on CNN. CNN runs 24 hours a day, and they have to fill time somehow. Erik the Rude 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ummm ... yeah. One suggestion -you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy to gain a little background on this process. BigDT 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm well aware of the policies relating to the deletion process. Don't patronize me. Erik the Rude 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable movie. JIP | Talk 08:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
• Merge with Star Wreck and Delete. They made this as a small test before making another film? So utterly not-notable. - Motor (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per DT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. "In the Pirkinning" is currently the only film in the series that merits a separate article. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SJennings 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck (or delete if Star Wreck does not survive it's own AfD).--Isotope23 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete per Isotope23 . — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. Only Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning is notable enough for its own article. -- Hawaiian717 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete+Merge Star Wreck may be notable, BigDT, but a small little test movie for it is NOT. Really, only episodes for major TV series should ever see the light of a separate article, and even then.... fancruft. Kevin_b_er 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck per abovePunainen Nörtti 09:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per same reasoning as Star Wreck would be kept - real media mentions, quite well known in Finland and elsewhere. Though I have to say that I'm on a bit more vague grounds here; this definitely wasn't the high point of the series and certainly not the most popular and well-made one. At worst, this is Mergeable material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Star Wreck, does not need an article of its own per Ilmari Karonen. Kusma (討論) 00:49, 10 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - please see my comments about Star Wreck (link to AFD)- there are plenty of mainstream media articles about this series, including CNN. [40] It's unquestionably notable. BigDT 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck, unless that one also doesn't survive the AFD, otherwise delete. However, the sum of the Star Wreck articles would seem to be notable. JRP 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, very notable movie. Why this Holy War against fiction? JIP | Talk 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
• Merge, with Star Wreck. - Motor (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Star Wreck. 3-4 million downloads reported, award winner, on IMDB, shown on television (not in the US but this is not Americapedia I think), many mentions in newspapers. This is not a couple of guys messing around with a camcorder like your average fan film. I think merge+redirect is perfectly reasonable too since there is only one movie in the series so far. Weregerbil 10:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, there is more than one movie. Only one of them is full-length and with professional quality, though. JIP | Talk 10:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not fancruft: download statistics and being shown on national television clearly indicate interest beyond hardcore Star Trek fans. Well written article about a notable free content indie film; nomination makes about as much sense as calling Spaceballs "Star Wars fancruft". Merge would be (barely) acceptable, but I see no harm in having distinct articles — we're not paying by the article count here. (Disclaimer: I own an official copy of "In the Pirkinning". I don't watch Star Trek, though.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Star Wreck if that article survives VfD. I really don't believe every single Trek fanfilm ever created merits its own Wikipedia article. SJennings 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not "every single Trek fanfilm". Do you know any other Trek fanfilm that has had 1.5 million downloads, has been mentioned in a country-wide newspaper, has been mentioned in TV news even in foreign countries, and has been shown on national TV? I have said it before, but one more time: just because it's done by fans does not automatically mean it has to be deleted. JIP | Talk 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Star Wreck or delete if Star Wreck does not survive its own AfD.--Isotope23 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck, since this is a fan show, only one article is needed for the time being. --Terence Ong 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Star Wreck. (Could go either way.) Meets WP:WEB, if nothing else. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep aired on Finnish TV, features professional actors, followed by national media. -- Hawaiian717 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep alone, clearly demonstrates notability.  Grue  19:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. The contents of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning and Star Wreck overlap considerably.Punainen Nörtti 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If we're going to be merging Samuli Torssonen and all the other minor Star Wreck articles into Star Wreck, as the emerging consensus seems to be, the article will grow considerably and will require a major rewrite. Tossing Pirkinning into the mix wouldn't IMHO be a very good fit. The redundancy could (and should) be eliminated in the process. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not yet convinced that we actually need two articles. Also the articles on Samuli Torssonen and the 4 1/2 film repeat the same facts that can already be found on Star Wreck and In the Pirkinning article. The extra information in In the Pirkinning article not found in the other articles consists of detailed trivia on characters, spaceships and sometimes even explanation of the jokes of the movie. IMHO a part of that could be deleted, for example I doubt that we need the detailed analysis of the Kari Grandi joke in the article. I still suspect that after rewrite the current material amounts to one good article, but of course I'd be glad to see two good articles.Punainen Nörtti 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • We definitely do not need a detailed analysis of how Finnish culture glorifies drunkenness in the article. I've already written an article on the original Kari Grandi commercials, this should suffice as an explanation. JIP | Talk 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Say what you will about other SW articles, SW:ITP was a phenomenally successful and a well-known movie for above-cited reasons. This was a Major Event for Finnish Cinema. =) And anyway, as noted above, this article is pretty extensive, and would be really, really difficult to merge to Star Wreck anyway. Can't really hurt to have an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I hate fancruft as much as the next editor and probably more than most, but this ain't fancruft. If you want to do Wikipedia a favour, go nominate something like Star Wars Republic 76: The Siege of Saleucami (and the other several dozen articles in that series on individual non-notable issues of a non-notable comic). That's fancruft. — Haeleth Talk 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd have to disagree a little - the comic seems to be notable, but individual issues of it are not. JIP | Talk 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The most viewed finnish film of all time, and a milestone in open content distribution. Hohenberg 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the examples for notable fan created content, also for meeting WP:WEB. Kusma (討論) 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep StarWreck is very notable in every aspect, plus it did Finnish movie history, with over 3 milj. viewers world-wide. It is very big thing, because those guys did that only for fun and hobby, not for money - i think that is notable. And we should respect that!-Solarius 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly notable enough. --KFP 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted -- Longhair 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog

Wikipedia's guidelines on websites Teke 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable website. Boarderline BJAODN. --Ezeu 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. C'mon, G—, we're trying to write an encyclopedia here. Choess 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delelete a blog entry about a nn blog. Probably the next step is for the Blog to comment on the AfD and that to get another self-reference article written about it - Peripitus (Talk) 03:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Haha. Are you Jimmy Shmitts? NO ONE REALLY KNOWS, according to the article. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• What the ... delete BigDT 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The notability of the website to which this article refers aside, that article is indecipherable garbage. I would hope that the quality of writing on the blog is better, but who the hell knows. ---Charles 04:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Tachyon01 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems mainly to constitute unsubstantiated information from a fan. David L Rattigan 08:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per failure to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not funny enough to be BJAODN. --Bachrach44 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, also seems to be too POV. —Mets501^talk 17:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per the resounding consensus above. I'd have tagged this for speedy nonsense if it weren't already AFD'd. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It was tagged speedy briefly, removed by the author. Other people were fiddling with the article, so I just AfD'd it to get concensus. Teke 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Delete per WP:WEB and common sense. --Strothra 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. There is nothing about this article that should merit the courtesy of an AfD. --EngineerScotty 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic and fails WP:WEB Eluchil404 01:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone... This is an embarrassment to all Americans against the war. Grandmasterka 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler warning part really clinches this as a BJAODN candidate. Do that. Grandmasterka 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Cawley

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft -- non-ST material is non-notable and brief. Possible speedy delete under WP:BIO. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge in with the main Star Trek: New Voyages article. Also, please note that there are a TON of news hits right now for James Cawley, but they are talking about a marine who was killed in Iraq - a different person. BigDT 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as not at all notable. Erik the Rude 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Delete, not notable fails WP:BIO. - Motor (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, per BigDT. Not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO by a mile also WP:V issues with claimed notability ("reputed to be one of the best Elvis impersonators in the United States" needs more than link to IMDB). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge in with the main Star Trek: New Voyages article. Not noteable at this stage . Ghostieguide 03:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Star Wreck, if the writers of that article didn't feel it necessary to mention what the equivalent of Starfleet was, neither do I, and there's no other content to merge here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P-Fleet

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the main Star Wreck article ... there's no way this merits its own article BigDT 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Star Wreck isn't notable, so this surely isn't. Isn't there some way this could be speedy deleted? Erik the Rude 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Tough one but I say Merge because this doesn't have enough for its own article but it can be used as added information OTAKU 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Star Wreck. Not worth its own article. JIP | Talk 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
• Delete... for the love of God... delete this. A fictional organisation in a fan film. - Motor (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Not much to merge there, actually. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SJennings 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Star Wreck.--Isotope23 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to Star Wreck. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the eldritch horror of a cruftstub related to a trekfanfilm proves that there are things that man was not meant to know; and also because it's very much not notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander la Zouche

The information on the page was originally taking from an early genealogy book on the famous Greene family of Rhode Island, endeavoring to prove their descent from English nobility. The earlier parts of the pedigree are, unfortunately, riddled with errors, and there's no good reason to believe this particular individual, aka Alexander de Greene de Boketon, ever existed. Choess 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. To me has no path by which to develop into a useful Wikipedia article. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per unable to meet WP:V Ydam 11:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and User:Ydam. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beach Bash

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as it stands does not meet WP:V and I've run more impressive sounding Sci-Fi conventions that certainly don't deserve an entry here. non-notable - Peripitus (Talk) 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ... no evidence of notability or sources with which to expand the article ... and I fail to see how the term "Star Trek fancruft" is appropriate here ... BigDT 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as a completely non-notable organization. This probably could be speedy deleted, as notability is not even asserted. Erik the Rude 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Tachyon01 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn -- GWO
• Delete, not notable. - Motor (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SJennings 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly speedy. (Not notable even within star trek fandom.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability, no claims of notability, no sources, no future. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:RadioKirk [41]. BigDT 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maquis Forces International

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article claims it "is the first completely Internet-based Star Trek fan organization" which would demonstrate at least some historical significance, but the claim is not backed up or referenced. Markeer 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability and does not meet WP:WEB as far as I can tell ...
• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Erik the Rude 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UCIP

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft (although perhaps borderline due to age of organization). — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability BigDT 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no way this is notable. Erik the Rude 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn -- GWO
• Delete, can't find any evidence of notability outside of a few fans. - Motor (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Do not delete, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.167.92.24 (talk • contribs) 19:04, June 9, 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Perhaps there could be an encyclopedic article on Star Trek simming (currently Star Trek (simming) is a redirect to Simming). This article would be a good starting point for that, but for now its barely encyclopedic. There should be no prejudice to including appropriate quantities of this content in such an article. Vadder 05:52, 11 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warp 11

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft -- possible speedy delete under {{db-band}}. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Allmusic lists 2 of the 3 albums but the label ( reboot ) I cannot find leading me to believe that they are a very small independant label - Peripitus (Talk) 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep only because the article refers to having songs performed on Dr. Demento and appearing in a documentary, which negates {{db-band}} by showing at least some significance. Markeer 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:BAND says that media mentions are a criterion ... [42] [43] BigDT 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Erik the Rude 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep some parts should be included in article OTAKU 03:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable band. JIP | Talk 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn -- GWO
• Delete, fan band. The allmusic listing isn't much help and I can't find any real evidence that it sneaks through WP:MUSIC. - Motor (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC press citations listed in this discussion are too minor to apply.--Isotope23 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep This band might not be quite notable enough on it's own, but this information ought to be kept somewhere. Any band with Kiki Stockhammer, Play, Inc.'s well-known spokesperson in the 90's, should be noted somewhere in this encyclopedia. Vadder 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, so copy the information into Trekkies 2 or Star Trek fandom... but this article should be banished. - Motor (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd remove it from either of those articles myself; why would an article about a documentary or about a subgroup of fandom record the names of members of a band? If it doesn't fit here, then unless we're prepared to have an article called Star Trek themed bands (which would be speedied about five minutes after it was created), then we should keep this article here. This information fits here or nowhere. Vadder 05:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BigDt.--Pokipsy76 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above Deleuze 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Sensenbrenner

Despite vast claims to notability, '"Ryan Sensenbrenner" saxophone' only brings up 5 Google hits, one to his personal website where he declines to give personal information (such as where he is performing and what recordings he has done, hmmmmm), and the others posts to various forums. '"Ryan Sensenbrenner" saxophonist' brings up four. Again, no information as to where he has performed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Seems to be a vanity page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - created by Rs2sensen? Original content described him as a high school student? Vanity it is. Opabinia regalis 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a vanity page. Tachyon01 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. -Big Smooth 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless the claims are verified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I tagged it, but apparently Rs2sensen removed it without comment. It is clearly vanity with no sign of notability. IrishGuy talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a7. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity/hoax. - Motor (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator, fails the everything test. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, fails the "more verifiably notable than me" test. (I'm a saxophonist.) Grandmasterka 05:29, 8 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo Fleet (second nomination)

(See also first AFD)

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Hayter's comments on the first AFD BigDT 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Minor Editing can be article in this encyclopedia with some minor changes OTAKU 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that a keep? - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gaming clans are routinely speedily deleted. I don't see how this is any different. Erik the Rude 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Such gaming clans are speedy deleted based on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Specifically, standard A7 says that speedy deletion is permissible for "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." This article asserts its importance based on it being (1) long-running and (2) having 1500 members. I would suggest reading the first AFD as there are plenty of comments in there about this organization's notability. BigDT 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn -- GWO
• Delete It may be old and well-populated, but it's still not nootable. GassyGuy 10:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. References are all to their own website, with one to a web forum post that appears broken. Not notable and Wikipedia is not a fan listing. - Motor (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too crufty and NN Ydam 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Motor and as recreation of previously deleted stuff. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable. --Mhking 12:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gaming clans are not suitible material for Wikipedia articles.--Isotope23 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment An article for what appears to be a splinter from this group, Obsidian Fleet, is also in Wikipedia. If Bravo Fleet is deleted, I imagine Obsidian may need to go in its footsteps. I will leave it to somebody else to judge, though. GassyGuy 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. --Terence Ong 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB and, per Isotope23, WP:NOT for gaming clans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments in the first afd. Why has it been renominated now? Isn't there a rule about providing reason with nominations? Even if not, in response to Angus McLellan it doesn't fail WP:WEB. That page says a site is notable if it meets any of the mentioned criteria. BF has been the subject of discussion in at least one printed non-fiction book, and its creator has been interviewed on Internet radio alongside one of the Enterprise actors. BF claims to have been awarded 115 website awards. And then there's the subsidiary groups, websites and forums. Individually, they're not worthy of note but coupled together (as they are) under one banner they are. Perhaps the article needs rewording to reflect this, but that's not grounds for deletion. - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who hasn't checked the old nomination, my original comments run thus: I've just finished looking at some similar afd's (one of which was nominated by myself), have checked the Bravo Fleet site and forums and have reconsidered my position. First, Bravo Fleet (the website) merely serves as a hub for the simming group itself. The majority of 'business' conducted concerning the group is not seen here. I don't mean the emails that relay back and forth with any co-maintained website, but this. Bravo Fleet rules state that every individual game must have its own website. Looking at the group's posted stats, that's 186 websites. Add to this forums and posting groups and the numbers suddenly shoot up. We can't measure the combined visibility of these websites and they probably don't deserve their own articles, but there's no denying they add to the totals presented for Bravo Fleet, given that they are subserviant to it. As well as this, on Wikipedia's notability page for websites, it is stated that with regards to (sign up & read) forums, that a total post count totalling three times the user count is 'good.' The BF forums have a post count that is 64 times the member count. Now I feel this method of judgement is somewhat lacking, but Wikipedia adheres to it and so it should be considered. The page also cites An established comic or site which has set a trend eg. Bob and George, while not the first sprite comic, did inspire many others. This seems to fit Bravo Fleet rather accurately. It was not the first Star Trek RPG group (its own history confirms that "Tango Fleet" is at least a year older) but many ST RPG groups seek to mould themselves in Bravo Fleet's image i.e. a large 'fleet' containing multiple 'task forces' and games. The closest written example to hand I have is taken from Expansion Fleet,

A Feedback/Suggestions forum is opened for all members to discuss freely their ideas and suggestions. This initiative proves succesfull and the idea is born to turn Expansion into something bigger and creating various divisions, similar to the style of Bravo Fleet and Tango Fleet.

Also note that the Wikipedia guidelines regarding website notability are often ignored in individual cases. I have no intention of extensively debating the suitability of these guidelines (as I find them to be largely unobjectionable) or defending this article, but given that the above strengthened my mind on the issue, it may be that it affects others. Clearly piece by piece these 'loopholes' if you want to call them that, don't seem much and don't warrant inclusion by themselves, but there are clearly a number of them in this case making this (I feel) an exception to the general rules. - Hayter 14:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP per my reasons in the first AFD (which I've included here). Also, this is being proposed by a pseudo-deletionist without a real reason why it should be deleted, without citing any valid Wikipedia Policy. I'm sorry, but show me where "fancruft" is a valid policy. I'll admit to being a senior member of BF, but I have also been a Wikipedian for over a year and a half now. BF has been around for about 9 years now, and is a strong member of the Star Trek on-line gaming community. Using WP:NOT, We're (wikipedia) not a paper encyclopedia, so, why can't we have a topic like this. Is it hurting anyone by keeping it there? I'm sure you can tell that I am an Inclusionist. Its (the information in the article) not slanderous, its verifiable, and we have kept sites that are just as non-notable before. Also, I don't see how it meets the WP:WEB standard: It has won web design awards, and has been included in a book on Star Trek and the creator has been interviewed a couple of times. Also, I'd like to see some definitive reasons it is considered a vanity site WP:VAIN. Is it enough to say it doesn't meet a number thresh-hold (WP:WEB) and that it is vain (WP:VAIN) without citing why? --Azathar 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Responsive points:

• When Azathar links to "pseudodeletionist," he links to the category of "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist." I have no idea if the actions of this association's users don't actually correspond to the midpoint philosophy suggested by its name — but that's of no matter, as I have done nothing with them. I merely chose to associate my account with their category because they seemed to be a useful midpoint between inclusionism and deletionism, with a title expressed in a humorous way.
• Regarding my use of the term "fancruft":
  • The WP:CRUFT essay — not policy, but a peer-reviewed essay — states, "[Individuals who dislike the term "fancruft"] might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is nevertheless in common use there."
  • Said essay also states that fancruft is commonly used as a shortcut in AfD to reference the "indiscriminate collection of information" clause: "Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating 'indiscriminate collections of information.'" That would be what I originally meant.
  • It is questionable whether using the term "fancruft" is a proper reason for a deletion nomination, but if it is, this shortcut has been committed on a massive scale in AfD for God knows how long.
  • That having been said, I've realized after my June 6 nominations that using the term "fancruft" seems to generate unnecessary offense. One might posit that these individuals are going to get offended anyway, but I've started using the direct policy cite.
• The policy language under "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" does not support inclusionism. But I'm not about to start debating with Azathar the merits and faults of inclusionism. It's a battle that's raged on Wikipedia long before I got here, and it's not been resolved. I doubt Azathar and I could come to an agreement.
• I'll let others respond to Azathar's questions about WP:WEB and WP:VAIN. I did not cite either in my nomination. In fact, I don't see anyone the WP:VAIN clause in this AfD, but perhaps Azathar couldn't be bothered to tailor his response to respond to the actual claims.
• Azathar has got his vote, and if this goes against him, he's got WP:DRV. But Wikipedia isn't his web host, and that means his article isn't a God-given right and is thus subject to community consensus. — Mike •  20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the response. This isn't my article, in that I didn't write it, but I do have a vested interest in it. And you are correct regarding the inclusionist argument, we probably couldn't come to an agreement. I know you didn't cite WP:VAIN or WP:WEB, I included them because I mentioned them in the first AfD, and I did say that I voted Keep based on those same reasons. You are right that I don't have a "God-given" right to have my article up on wikipedia, but you don't need to be rude and say "God-given" right either. Remember Wikipedia:Civility. Lastly, "fancruft" is just an essay, not policy, and as such, it shouldn't be used as a reason for an AfD, though you are also correct that is has been before. Perhaps though you should be an example for other editors and correctly state your reasons why you think this article should be deleted. Your "corrected" reason is a much better one to use then "fancruft". No, I'm not offended that you used the term, but instead am annoyed that you are using an essay (though peer-reviewed) that is NOT policy to justify an AfD. Just because every one else does it does not mean its the correct way to do it. And yes, I do have WP:DRV, thanks for the reminder.--Azathar 00:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to qualify + no reason given for deletion. --JJay 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Was kept after the first try at deleting this article, no reason given this time for deletion. --Saberwolfe 00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What I get from this article is the history of a fan club. The article fails to credibly assert why a non-member might care about what's going on in Bravo Fleet. We should keep all the fan film articles nominated recently because those films by their nature reach beyond the circle of friends that produce them; this group should keep its own records on its own website. Kudos to whomever is so into archiving the activities of Bravo Fleet that they chronicled the saga of people stealing images off the fleet's web pages[44]; I honestly think such minutia should be recorded and archived for the ages ... just not here. Vadder 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete utterly non-notable beyond a small circle. Completely unencyclopedic. Deleuze 14:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applied Micro Circuits Corporation

This company is not prominent enough to have an article. WP:NOT Masterpjz9 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete seems not like Wikipedia material; some sounds like advertising OTAKU 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I think it meets WP:CORP. It was just recently removed from the S&P 500 index[45] and still gets mentioned in major publications like Forbes[46] and Investor's Business Daily[47]. The company doesn't seem to be doing terribly well but I think it's still notable. It does read like an ad, though, and I will tag as such. -Big Smooth 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Big Smooth. A company (recently) on the S&P 500 is notable. I definitely agree tht it needs to lose the press release tone, but it's a company readers might reasonably want information on. LotLE×talk 17:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a notable company, but reads too much like an ad. —Mets501^talk 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the above comments. Have to ask, "WP:NOT" what? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:12, 7 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 Speedied. Tawker 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAO CHAMPA

This page was tagged db-bio and the original author placed a hang-on tag in response. However, rather than indicating the notability of the topic, the author simply removed the speedy delete tag and made no improvement to the article. The db-bio tag was restored along with a db-repost tag, both of these tags were removed as well. If this topic is notable, the author has had opportunity to say so. At this point, it seems indecipherable. Charles 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless improved to show notability. Google test results[48].Yanksox 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. also nn. Tychocat 07:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing in the article indicates notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is it just some guy? Did he do anything? —Mets501^talk 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete actually a buncha guys, for whom notability is not asserted. Essentially a family. I readded db-group. A note to Yanksox, Google results are meaningless, as Indian languages are not expressed in the Latin alphabet. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment You and your facts. I'll keep that in mind. Yanksox 00:50, 7 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 – Gurch 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin BBYO

Not notable. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information as per WP:NOT Masterpjz9 04:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough to have its own separate article. joturner 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and/or redirect to the parent organisation, B'nai B'rith Youth Organization, per the large number of North American Federation of Temple Youth region articles that were recently put up for deletion and subsequently merged/redirected. -- saberwyn 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn. No context. Tychocat 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The organization is not noteworthy enough for its own article. Perhaps merge per saberwyn. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "Why Wisconsin Region is Special" was a giveaway :) —Mets501^talk 18:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, now it's "Differences from other regions of BBYO"...better, but not much meat to it. -- Scientizzle 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still getting more info about this region. I expect to add to that section by next week. I was thinking about putting a small section with information about each chapter. --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should see what Dantheman531 has to put together. Even if we keep it, the whole article needs to be rewritten; as it is now, its just a collection of indiscriminate information. But, if it's not anything that really makes this BBYO significant from other BBYOs, then it still should be deleted. -- Masterpjz9 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete there doesn't seem to be much here to merge, although I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect to B'nai B'rith Youth Organization. -- Scientizzle 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• I see what you guys are saying. What should I add to this page to make it better? --דניאל - Dantheman531 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not what you should add, but the Wisconsin BBYO needs to have something about it that makes it worthy (for lack of a better word) of an article on Wikipedia. See WP:NOT and WP:5P. If the Wisconsin BBYO does not fit this criteria, then it should not be included in WP. -- Masterpjz9 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete extensive consensus has been reached in the past that regions and chapters of notable organizations are not notable simply by virtue of association. This is true with BBYO, with NFTY and with USY. Any information which differs this region from the others should simply be included on the main page - pm_shef 01:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Institute of Mathematics

Sounds like an advertisement and contains no important information Masterpjz9 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Very notable mathematics organization that has provided a large amount of funding and organization for basic research. They were the ones who sponsored Paul Seymour and Neil Robertson's work on the perfect graph theorem, for example. --Wzhao553 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: that's listed in the AMS Notices reference as one of the big successes of AIM's workshop format; hopefully somebody can incorporate that into the article. --C S (Talk) 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I added the graph theory problems they've sponsored. --Wzhao553 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn, no context. If there's been such important research, that needed to be in the article with citations. As it is, it's an advertisement for Fry's with a veneer. Tychocat 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tychocat Deleteme42 10:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. It's billed in a printed AMS publication as an "mathematics institute of international renown". I think they're qualified to make that judgement. Current article is kind of silly, but the subject is notable. flowersofnight (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the organization contributes to research which is more than Caulfield Grammar School or Hopkins School does. Cedars 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable. Multiple Google hits. Gandalf61 13:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. One of seven NSF-funded mathematical institutes. The quote referred by flowersofnight is from the AMS Notices article cited as a reference in the article. I urge anybody, thinking to delete, to read it before making a decision. (available here; 2.1 MB pdf ). As for the claim of advertising for Fry's, given that Fry has invested much into starting and running the institute, it is hardly advertising to mention that he founded it. One focus of the Notices article is on its unusual workshop format; I believe describing this should make for an interesting article for Wikipedia. Finally, let me mention that AIM workshops (which have involved a number of distinguished mathematicians) and fellowships are very well-known and high-profile. There are only a handful of other institutes (like MSRI) in the U.S. that I can think to mention ahead of it. The article is kinda crappy but that's a reason to improve, not delete. --C S (Talk) 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable institute. Paul August ☎ 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand Highly notable, and the article is not at all advertise-y. -- Kicking222 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Notices AMS is a reliable source (or even a notable source), if the article is not a paid advertisement. They didn't take multi-page paid advertisements when I was a member of the American Mathematical Society, but I dropped my membership because of issues related to sponsorship and affiliations. (The article doesn't have an assertion of notability at the moment, if the institute is notable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wasn't aware that featured articles in the Notices could be paid advertisements, or that their regular staff writers would engage in such activities under the guise of journalism. This is a serious charge...what reason do you have to believe this? It's easy enough to check out the Notices article, if you haven't already. --C S (Talk) 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, notable institution, doesn't sound like an ad at all. --Terence Ong 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as a notable mathematics organization, even though it's not the best written article. —Mets501^talk 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep If you feel an article is not written properly, rewrite it. Do not nominate it for deletion. -- 127.*.*.1 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable institution, does need a little npov. Kevin_b_er 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep remove overly-detailed location info, expand the rest Walt 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep despite being behind a Fry's Electronics, it's still an institution no less (although I hear they're expanding into a actual location? anyone?) Itsthomson 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Definite keep. What do you mean no actual location? The current place is great if you like the idea of a math library inside an armaggedon-proof bunker. Silly rabbit 00:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Michael Hardy 23:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A. Michael Baldwin

Minor actor with a dozen credits, the most prominent being the four Phantasm movies (there were four of them?). Wikipedia is not IMDB2. Calton | Talk 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. First on the list on the Phantasm cast [49], and this bio also seems to indicate plenty of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Never heard of him, but some quick research reveals there is info available on him, and the article could develop into something of value and interest. Wikipedia ain't paper. David L Rattigan
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Starred in a moderately noteworthy movie/series. Wickethewok 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable actor. --Terence Ong 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Deleteas per nom. Never heard of him either Bwithh 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the above comments. Not having heard of someone isn't a valid justification for deletion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable actor who has appeared on Sesame Street, The Electric Company, Starsky & Hutch, and Eight is Enough.  ALKIVAR™ 08:51, 7 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. This is a pretty clearcut non notable bio, and a selfwritten one to boot. --++Lar: t/c 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher A. Herring

Pure-vanity bio (from User:Christopher A. Herring -- note that his user page originally was a redirect to this article) of some mid-level publishing exec. Gets 304 total Google hits for "Christopher Herring" -- many of them not him -- and six (6) Google hits for "Christopher A. Herring" -- NONE for him. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment, Removed dated prod tag because wikipedian editor Calton was rude, calling me "some mid-level publishing exec." Information is verifiable in print: see masthead in physical copy of Forbes magazine -- though how someone who works in New York publishing would set such a low benchmark for rudeness, I don't know. Calton | Talk 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Politely delete per WP:BIO, as the person does not appear to meet any of the guidelines and tests there, and his position does not seem equevilant to any of the examples given at this notability guideline. Also, I don't know how far into detail the print masthead for Forbes magazine goes, but on the online masthead, I am having great difficulty finding his title or equevilant position (Note: I am looking for his position here, not him). Maybe they abolished his post after he left, but even so, the sum total of the verifiable information (assuming an equal level of detail between the online and print mastheads) is that a person by the name of Christopher Herring *worked in that position, in NO way enough for even a stub unless fleshed out by original research which is a definite no-no or 'vanity' work which is highly inadvised. -- saberwyn 06:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. David L Rattigan 08:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• The online masthead for Forbes.com does not include people who work for the parent company, Forbes Inc. You'll notice that Steve Forbes is not even on the online masthead, but controls the entire Forbes enterprise... I do not think my work is vanity work, and in the magazine publishing space, I am well known. Please provide guidance on how I can specifically alter this entry and I'd more than happy to do so. --Christopher A. Herring 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You need to prove the facts presented through a third-party, externally verifiable source (in other words somehting written by someone else published. For every aspect of the article, we must be able to confirm it wothout having to go and physically ask you or one of your close colleagues. That would be a start. -- saberwyn 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as failure of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability NawlinWiki 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete, since "many Wikipedians oppose the use of [the] WP:BIO guideline," myself included. As the WP:BIO guidleing states, I encourage you to provide "a personal and specific message about your concerns about the article, on the article's talk page." --Christopher A. Herring 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hang on - you just argued that it shouldn't be deleted because you and others oppose the BIO policy, and then you argue that we should discuss this on your talkpage - as per the BIO policy... In any case, I think the main point of contention is that this is a vanity article. David L Rattigan 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see any verifiable evidence. All seems to be original research on a subject who isn't particularly notable in the first place. Strange that someone who is inclined to write articles about himself opposes WP:BIO... hmmmm... Wickethewok 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, unverifiable, vanity. --Terence Ong 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, waste of storage. --Charlesknight 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:VANITY. Also, so-named author has been considered rude against other Wikipedians, AFAIK. --Slgrandson 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while I would be open to a loosening of WP:BIO I don't see any assertion of notability here, in addition to the violation og WP:VANITY. Eluchil404 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if you must, but I don't see why WP:BIO can't be loosened so that people can place bios of themselves in the world's greatest encylcopedia. As for Charlesknight, are we really concerned about storage space in the year 2006? Christopher A. Herring 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• why WP:BIO can't be loosened so that people can place bios of themselves in the world's greatest encylcopedia. In a word, "quality control" (okay, that's two words). If this is, indeed, going to be "the world's greatest encyclopedia", it'll be that way by not being mistaken for the Yellow Pages or the university alumni newsletter. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Kotepho 00:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheila McGibbon

Non-notable actress. One TV film in 1988, and 11 theatrical roles over 50 years. Calton | Talk 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Ulster Group Theatre appears to have historical interest.[50] David L Rattigan 08:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If Ulster Group Theatre has historical interest, write a fecking article about Ulster Group Theatre. -- GWO
• Delete, per GWO. - Motor (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Her picture remains in Ireland's national theatre, the Abbey Theatre in Dublin.
• Keep. According to an article in an 1997 copy of the Belfast Telegraph she helped Liam Neeson get an Equity Card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceofhearts (talk • contribs) , the article's creator, both added simultaneously at 20:05, 8 June 2006

• Is there a reason why I can't post that statement above as a valid 'keep?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceofhearts (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 June 2006 -- please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~).

• Ballot-box stuffing, maybe? Attempting to pass off one statement by one person as if it were two different votes by two different people? Changing other people's comments to change the meaning of their words? Not signing what you do? Other than those minor issues, not a thing. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• -I'm sorry! I didn't know you could only put in one Keep or one Delete! I thought you could put as many as apropriate! Im sorry! I've never done a article deletion discussion before. I also changed your sentance too 12 plays, because I had added it wrong, sorry..

I didn't know I had too/how too sign my comments. I will in future. Is this how? - {{|Aceofhearts|12.03, 9 June 2006.}}

• Can I add another keep? I just found a DVD (converted from video) of one of the television shows, The Last of a Dying Race, and she was the lead actress. Could I add a media file? Template:AceofHearts
  • You can add as many reasons as you like for the benefit of other users, but only one "keep" in bold, to register your vote. David L Rattigan 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping, and can I add more info to that one keep I previously put? AceofHearts 3.15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to 'stuff the ballot box,' but I've informed IMDb that Sheila McGibbon was in several television shows, they got back to me and said that they are going to update her IMDb profile. AceofHearts 9.23 10 June 2006
• Strong Keep Any actress appearing in several television shows merits an article in Wikipedia. She was also a lead actress in The Last of a Dying Race. Moreover, the quality of verification for this article is excellent. Considering all these points, even if she remains non-notable to a few Wikipedians, we should err in the side of caution and keep this article here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Does this mean the article is no longer up for deletion, seeing as how there have been a number of arguments against the deletion? AceofHearts 5.39 11 June 2006

• Keep?I have a poster for the Tea in a China Cup play, in which she is on the cover as the main actress. I could upload it if I figuire out how. I also have a standard photo of her, I believe it to be her headshot. im not a regular user, but my name is Siobhan Rice, 2.48, 14 June 2006.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Non notable and written by a member. --++Lar: t/c 04:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brainless Horseman

Local improv comedy group. Greatest claim to fame is a member who made a TV show. Not a TV series, a TV episode, the "reunion episode" of You Can't Do That on Television. Good luck on your future show-biz careers, but Wikipedis is not a PR vehicle. Calton | Talk 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm an inclusionist for just about everything except vanity articles. In this case, this article about a comedy troupe founded by David Dillehunt was created by DND aka... David Dillehunt! David L Rattigan 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. BuckRose 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Seems to be a vanity page. — Mike 20:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm the article's primary author. It lists my group and one of our notable achievements -- no so-called "vanity" or "PR Vehicle" activities. Unlike dozens of similar articles that even provide links to their official websites, our page is simply a database record. Please do not delete this entry. Thanks. — Dndfilms 18:56, 8 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. Plenty of time to establish notability (some mention of amounts under managment, or specific article cites would have done it), and depeacock. I'm afraid Wikipedia is going to have to go short on this one. Non notable bio. --++Lar: t/c 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Laudani

Yet another vanity bio, this time for a self-promoting investment advisor, created by CLaudani (talk · contribs). Stuffed with peacock language. Calton | Talk 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Samir धर्म 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• How do you know the editor doesn't just coincidentally share the name "C Laudini"?
  • Delete, I'll take that bet. WP:VANITY. - Motor (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, by the way. David L Rattigan 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion NawlinWiki 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep If the claim multiple mentions in the listed media including the The Wall Street Journal he may be notable. I've added a message to the user's talk page asking us if he can supply us with the relevant articles. If someone has access to Nexus right now, it would be appreciated if they searched for them. JoshuaZ 03:21, 7 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 into Port Rowan, Ontario. Kotepho 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Port Rowan Good News

A monthly newspaper for a town of 1,000 people. Calton | Talk 04:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mention the existence of this newspaper in the Port Rowan, Ontario, then delete. -- saberwyn 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Port Rowan, Ontario. Paper is important enough for a few lines within the article about its community/readership, but does not need its own article. GassyGuy 08:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. David L Rattigan 09:07, 6 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber Quest

A science-fiction book series that has somehow entirely escaped the attention of Amazon -- and Google. The various components have been speedily deleted/redirected as soon as they've cropped up, but absent any evidence of its very existence, it's time for this one to go, too. Calton | Talk 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ... assuming good faith that this might be a self-published thing or something like that, I tried googling "HML Inc" (the purported publishing company) and I couldn't find them. So I guess hoax it is. BigDT 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per BigDT. Without reliable references it as to be treated as a hoax. - Motor (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment When I first encountered this article, I attempted to verify it and I believed it was the series of books by Sigmund Brouwer, which can be found on Amazon. The Wikipedia article for this author also mentions CyberQuest. However, upon revisiting this, I see that there are inconsistencies in the publisher's name and the books' characters. I've left a message on the contributor's talk page asking for the names of the books, and I will reserve my vote pending his or her response. Accurizer 13:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since the contributor saw my questions noted above but did not respond. He/she added to the article but did not provide the names of these supposed books. Accurizer 11:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article isn't about the Sigmund Brouwer christian sci-fi series, but something unrelated and likely unverifiable. No real publisher would release books titled so similarly to an existing series (and same genre too!). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think my biggest issue is the way the articles were first put here--they took a form such that I wanted to db-bio them, until someone pointed out the word starship to me! I mean, besdies the already noted problems, I'm liable to think of this as possible vanity. Probable, even, having been a vanity editor myself back when. Niki Whimbrel 18:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice This is pure spam, the user HMLINC (talk · contribs) tries to use Wikipedia to market himself and/or his company, named HML Inc. /Magore 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• That user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism-only account". Seems like an odd block to me... But anyway, delete as unverifiable vanity. Grandmasterka 05:45, 8 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of visible minority and aboriginal candidates in Canadian elections

It stinks of WP:NOR and fails to cite. Delete Ardenn 04:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All Canadian elections? Ever? Unmaintainable and I'm not seeing much point. And are Aboriginals not visible minorities? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 23skidoo 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Although I see the validity of User:Cooltobekind's intentions in creating this, I don't find it particularly useful as structured. Ardenn asked me to comment here because I've previously edited it for glaring typos and such, but in actual fact I have no qualms about killing this. I think it would be far more appropriate and helpful to list minority candidates in a particular election on that particular election's own article — I don't see the value in a giant omnibus list (especially one that's this badly written and formatted). Delete this; put any relevant information into the articles on each individual election instead. For what it's worth, though, it's not particularly original research to compile a list of people's known ethnic and racial backgrounds. Bearcat 06:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable, POV, listcruft. KleenupKrew 11:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Information into party and election articles, then delete. Bo 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this, although there may be some scope for an encyclopaedic treatment of the issue of minority candidates in Canadian politics. Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Pecher ^Talk 08:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP It is hard to cite sources - but I have contacted the political parties themselves to check there records - should I include that as the source? Cooltobekind

You would need a source we could all check with ease. Read WP:RS and WP:V.

• Keep I see the Wiki-Nazi's are at it again. Time to call in reenforcements. Bluffsman

User's first contribution to wikipedia. ---J.S (t|c) 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Nobody's being a Nazi; just not everybody thinks that this article as written is actually the most useful presentation of the information. I'm all in favour of this kind of thing if it's presented in a useful way. Bearcat 18:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just another list that deserves a quiet burial in the wiki-trash bin. Clunky and disorganized. Really deserves a non-list article on Canadian electoral trends. Delete this and start again. --Atrian 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since I can't really see the usefulness of this list. Break it up into the individual elections... and even then, I'm not so sure. Why do we need a list of "non-white" candidates? Should we also have a list of "white" candidates too? ---J.S (t|c) 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Properly done, the list would show the increasing numbers of 'non-white' candidates, and thereby that the Canadian Government is becoming more inclusive. Its not a bad thing to show the growth of Canada as a multicultural country. Bo 11:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per KleenupKrew and Atrian. --Suttungr 14:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• RestartI pretty sure Ardenn is you Bearcat. I got no problem deleteing it and starting it again though.

I copyed all the info onto my profile, so just visit my user name to see the data. Also I have been going to the library microfiles to look at old newspapers - as every election they write a little article on the subject. Cooltobekind 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I pretty sure Ardenn is you Bearcat. Excuse me? Would you care to explain this comment? Bearcat 06:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the compliment. I strive to be as great an editor as Bearcat is. Alas, we are not the same person. Ardenn 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- I've been trying to get some interest in bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards ( see talk page), but have had no success. This is just a data dump. It does not present useful information in a way that readers can make any sense of it. Sorry. It should go unless someone want to clean it up to Wikipedia standards. Ground Zero | t 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not sure this list is really necessary, and frankly i kinda find it offensive. Anything under the sun can count as a visible minority. Personally whether someone is Black, White, Brown, or from 70 Virginis b does it really matter? I don't see these kinda lists as anything more then racial segregation. When I vote I want to see what there policies are, vision and if they will be a good effective representative. --Cloveious 00:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water pollution and society

Delete - This is someone's personal essay, and is identified as such at the beginning of the article. WP:NOT a source for original though, etc. Gershwinrb 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy as repost - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since this is an essay and a violation of WP:NOR. However, it does not look like a speedy candidate ("essay" is not a criterion for speedy deletion) and WP:CSD G4 does not count if all the deletions were speedies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-identified OR. Just zis Guy you know? 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Molerat 14:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, and surely all the potentially useful stuff is covered elsewhere. Grandmasterka 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting essay, but not appropriate for an encyclopædia. I feel sorry for the author if he or she wrote it. --Starionwolf 01:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)